Radiofrequency Identification Track for Tray Optimization: An Instrument Utilization Pilot Study in Surgical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Surgical instrument tray reduction attempts to minimize intraoperative inefficiency and processing costs. Previous reduction methods relied on trained observers manually recording instrument use (i.e. human ethnography), and surgeon and/or staff recall, which are imprecise and inherently limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility of radiofrequency identification (RFID)-based intraoperative instrument tracking as an effective means of instrument reduction. METHODS: Instrument trays were tagged with unique RFID tags. A RFID reader tracked instruments passing near RFID antennas during 15 breast operations performed by a single surgeon; ethnography was performed concurrently. Instruments without recorded use were eliminated, and 10 additional cases were performed utilizing the reduced tray. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds of instrument use across cases. Cohen's Kappa estimated agreement between RFID and ethnography. RESULTS: Over 15 cases, 37 unique instruments were used (median 23 instruments/case). A mean 0.64 (median = 0, range = 0-3) new instruments were added per case; odds of instrument use did not change between cases (OR = 1.02, 95%CI 1.00-1.05). Over 15 cases, all instruments marked as used by ethnography were recorded by RFID tracking; 7 RFID-tracked instruments were never recorded by ethnography. Tray size was reduced 40%. None of the 25 eliminated instruments were required in 10 subsequent cases. Cohen's Kappa comparing RFID data and ethnography over all cases was 0.82 (95%CI 0.79-0.86), indicating near perfect agreement between methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative RFID instrument tracking is a feasible, data-driven method for surgical tray reduction. Overall, RFID tracking represents a scalable, systematic, and efficient method of optimizing instrument supply across procedures.

Performance of Harmonic devices in surgical oncology: an umbrella review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: We performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews summarizing the evidence on the Harmonic scalpel (HS) compared with conventional techniques in surgical oncology (including lymph node dissection). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to end of March of 2017 for meta-analyses or systematic reviews of randomized trials comparing HS to conventional techniques in surgical oncology. We assessed the quality of included systematic reviews with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and assessed the certainty in evidence for each pooled outcome using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RESULTS: We identified ten systematic reviews on breast cancer (n = 3), gastric cancers (n = 3), oral, head, and neck cancers (n = 1), and colon cancers (n = 3). Most reviews received a higher rating using AMSTAR. For operative time, systematic reviews reported a reduction of 25 to 29 min for HS compared with conventional methods across oncology types, with the exception of breast cancer where little differences were observed (very low to moderate quality of evidence (GRADE)). For blood loss and drainage volume, the majority of reviews reported statistically significant reductions with HS, and reductions ranged from 42 to 141 mL, and from 42 to 292 mL, respectively (very low to moderate quality of evidence). Hospitalization days were reported to decrease with use of HS by 0.2 to 3.2 days; however, reductions were only statistically significant for half of the included reviews (low to moderate quality of evidence). Regarding perioperative complications, two of six reviews reported a significantly reduced risk with HS use (breast cancer surgery) (moderate to high quality evidence)). CONCLUSION: Across surgical oncology types, the majority of included systematic reviews showed a statistically significant or numerical improvement in surgical outcomes with use of the HS compared with conventional methods. Well-designed randomized studies with large sample sizes will help to provide more precise estimates and reduce the risk of heterogeneity.