Key result
Small surgical wrap defects of 1.2 mm were detected only 3% of the time by operating room staff, significantly less often than larger defects or wraps with no defects (99%).
Why the study?
Surgical site infection is a challenging complication, prompting an emphasis on prevention and an evaluation of the accuracy of identifying surgical wrap defects based on defect size, location, and operating room staff experience.
Does defect size, location, and staff experience affect the accuracy of identifying surgical wrap defects by operating room staff?
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Random placement of defects
Does defect size, location, and staff experience affect the accuracy of identifying surgical wrap defects by operating room staff?
Sterilization wrap defects, especially small ones (1.2 mm), go undetected at very high rates by operating room staff, posing a risk for bacterial contamination.
Defect detection accuracy varies by size and experience; leaves open whether standardized inspection protocols reduce surgical site infections.
Surgical site infection is a challenging complication that places a significant burden on the patient and the health care system. Emphasis is being placed on the prevention and treatment of surgical site infections. We evaluated the accuracy of identifying surgical wrap defects based on defect size, location, and operating room staff experience. Forty sterilization wraps were divided into 4 separate groups based on the size of the puncture defects created. Defects measuring 1.2 mm, 3.7 mm, and 6.8 mm were compared with a control group of surgical wraps with no defects. Defects were randomly placed on an inner or outer line with circumference of 7 cm or 14 cm, respectively. Twenty operating room staff of varying levels of experience evaluated each wrap for defects. The detection rates for the 1.2-mm, 3.7-mm, and 6.8-mm wraps and the wraps with no defects were 3%, 73%, 80%, and 99%, respectively. A significant difference was seen between the detection rates for the small defects vs all other size defects. No significant difference was seen in detection rate based on the location of defects. The detection rate was higher among staff members with greater than 1 year of experience vs those with less than 1 year of experience. Sterilization wrap defects of all sizes went undetected at very high rates. Small defects of 1.2 mm, which have been shown to allow bacterial contamination, were missed 97% of the time. Operating room staff with more experience detected more defects than those with less than 1 year of experience. Wrap defects may be a source of bacterial contamination that may frequently go unnoticed. [ Orthopedics . 2021;44(6):735–e738.]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kelly et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Surgical wrap defects (n=20). Surgical wrap defects (1.2 mm) vs. Surgical wraps with no defects was evaluated on Detection rate of surgical wrap defects. Small surgical wrap defects of 1.2 mm were detected only 3% of the time by operating room staff, significantly less often than larger defects or wraps with no defects (99%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: