The Situate™ system is a powerful patient safety tool that reliably locates missing and retained surgical sponges. With accuracy and efficiency that far surpasses X-rays 1, this adjunct technology is a reliable sponge management solution for hospitals.
Eleven patients almost had a surgical sponge left inside their body after emergency surgery. But they didn’t. Because LAC + USC Medical Center was using the Situate™ detection system, and it identified the sponges — including two when the count was thought to be correct.6
LAC + USC joins a growing number of hospitals using the Situate™ systems as an essential component in their sponge management protocols. They’ve been convinced by the clinical and economic data about retained surgical sponges, and evidence that shows how the Situate™ system helps prevent them.
Fill out this form to see the evidence.
The problem of retained surgical sponges is not unique to the OR. In fact, 22% of retained surgical sponges are left in the vagina.8
That’s why we developed a sponge management solution designed specifically to protect new mothers: the Situate™ delivery system. It employs the same technology as our detection system, with similar benefits.
Dr. Hector Chapa, clinical assistant professor at the Texas A&M College of Medicine, discusses those benefits in his paper, “Improving Patient Care by Reducing Retained Sponges During Vaginal Deliveries.”9
Read more about the System X, and the benefits it can bring to your procedures and hospital.
Read NowLearn more about the frequency and dangers of retained surgical sponges, and ways to address this never event.
Watch the VideoPerception of RSIs Not What You May Think. Read the Modern Healthcare executive summary of a recent survey to learn more.
Get the Summary1. Steelman VM. Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: a prospective, cross-over study. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):233–237.
2. Mehtsun WT, Ibrahim AM, Diener-West M, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Surgical never events in the United States. Surgery. 2013;153(4):465–472.
3. Average number of minutes and compared to manual counting alone. Williams TL, Tung DK, Steelman VM, Chang PK, Szekendi MK. Retained surgical sponges: findings from incident reports and a cost-benefit analysis of radiofrequency technology. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2014.
4. Lauwers PR, Hee RHV. Intraperitoneal gossypibomas: the need to count sponges. World Journal of Surgery. 2000;24(5):521–527.
5. Compared to manual counting alone. Steelman VM. Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: a prospective, cross-over study. The American Journal of Surgery. 2011;201:233–237.
6. Inaba K, Okoye O, Aksoy H, et al. The role of radio frequency detection system embedded surgical sponges in preventing retained surgical sponges: A prospective evaluation in patients undergoing emergency surgery. Ann Surg. 2016 July 18. [Epub ahead of print]
7. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(1):80–87. doi:doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.047.
8. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):229–235.
9. Chapa H. Improving patient care by reducing retained sponges during vaginal deliveries. Ob.Gyn. News. http://www.mdedge.com/obgynnews/article/112018/clinical-update-improving-patient-care-reducing-retained-sponges-during. Published Aug. 29, 2016. Accessed Dec. 21, 2016.
10. Refer to product Instructions for Use