BACKGROUND: The occupational hazard associated with percutaneous injury in the operating room (OR) has encouraged harm reduction through behaviour change and the use of safety-engineered surgical sharps. Some Canadian regulatory agencies have mandated the use of "safety scalpels." Our primary objective was to determine whether safety scalpels reduce the risk of percutaneous injury in the OR, while a secondary objective was to evaluate risk reduction associated with other safety practices. METHODS: We used evidence review methods described by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and conducted a systematic, English-language search of Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE using the following search terms: "safety-engineered scalpel," "mistake proofing device," "retractable/removable blade/scalpel," "pass tray," "hands free passing," "neutral zone," "sharpless surgery," "double/cutproof gloving" and "blunt suture needles." Included articles were scored according to level of evidence; quality; and whether they were supportive, opposed or neutral to the study question(s). RESULTS: Of 72 included citations, none was supportive of the use of safety scalpels. There was high-level/quality evidence (Cochrane reviews) in support of risk reduction through double-gloving and use of blunt suture needles, with additional evidence supporting a pass tray/neutral zone for sharps handling (4 of 5 articles supportive) and use of suturing adjuncts (1 article supportive). CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support regulated use of safety scalpels. Injury-reduction strategies should emphasize proven methods, including double-gloving, blunt suture needles and use of hands-free sharps transfer.
BACKGROUND: The occupational hazard associated with percutaneous injury in the operating room (OR) has encouraged harm reduction through behaviour change and the use of safety-engineered surgical sharps. Some Canadian regulatory agencies have mandated the use of "safety scalpels." Our primary objective was to determine whether safety scalpels reduce the risk of percutaneous injury in the OR, while a secondary objective was to evaluate risk reduction associated with other safety practices. METHODS: We used evidence review methods described by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and conducted a systematic, English-language search of Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE using the following search terms: "safety-engineered scalpel," "mistake proofing device," "retractable/removable blade/scalpel," "pass tray," "hands free passing," "neutral zone," "sharpless surgery," "double/cutproof gloving" and "blunt suture needles." Included articles were scored according to level of evidence; quality; and whether they were supportive, opposed or neutral to the study question(s). RESULTS: Of 72 included citations, none was supportive of the use of safety scalpels. There was high-level/quality evidence (Cochrane reviews) in support of risk reduction through double-gloving and use of blunt suture needles, with additional evidence supporting a pass tray/neutral zone for sharps handling (4 of 5 articles supportive) and use of suturing adjuncts (1 article supportive). CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support regulated use of safety scalpels. Injury-reduction strategies should emphasize proven methods, including double-gloving, blunt suture needles and use of hands-free sharps transfer.
Authors: J I Tokars; D M Bell; D H Culver; R Marcus; M H Mendelson; E P Sloan; B F Farber; D Fligner; M E Chamberland; P S McKibben Journal: JAMA Date: 1992-06-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marc Nicolai Busche; Jennifer Maren Klein; Bernd Kröger; Jan Siewe; Herbert Faber; Jutta Müßler; Stefan Reuter; Leonard Bastian; Peter Maria Vogt Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Abel P David; Nicole T Jiam; Joshua M Reither; Jose G Gurrola; Manish K Aghi; Ivan H El-Sayed Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.147