Characterization of device-related interruptions in minimally invasive surgery: need for intraoperative data and effective mitigation strategies
The burden of device-related interruptions is expected to increase as modern surgical practices adopt complex minimally invasive surgery devices. Currently, there is a paucity of empiric data that examined the nature of device-related interruptions using comprehensive intraoperative data.
We performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive elective laparoscopic general surgery cases performed in one operating room (OR) at a referral center between April 2014 and April 2016. The included cases were directly observed using a comprehensive multiport data recorder called the OR Black Box. The data were synchronized, encrypted, and reviewed by expert surgeon assessors. The assessors characterized device-related interruptions that occurred during operations. The prevalence of the cases with device-related interruptions was calculated. Device-related interruptions were classified into a priori categories of (1) absent/wrong device; (2) improper assembly; (3) loss of sterility; (4) disconnection; and (5) device failure.
In a cohort of 210 cases, 64 (30%) had at least one device-related interruption. Sleeve gastrectomy (52%) and oncologic gastrectomy (43%) procedures experienced the highest prevalence of device-related interruptions. Device failure was the most frequently chosen category with laparoscopic staplers implicated in more than half of these failures. Three failure modes were described for laparoscopic stapler, of which stapler malfunction (46%) was the most common.
Device-related interruptions occurred frequently in the OR and could be characterized into one of the five categories. Understanding the nature of the device-related interruptions can help guide implementation of safety interventions and user training in the future.
KeywordsSurgical safety Education Interruption Distraction Surgery
This study was supported by Ethicon Canada, Medtronic Canada, Olympus Canada, Baxter Canada, Takeda Canada and Intuitive Surgical (US).
Compliance with ethical standards
Teodor Grantcharov holds intellectual property ownership of Surgical Safety Technologies Inc. and is supported by research grants from Medtronic Canada, Ethicon Canada, Baxter Canada, Olympus Canada, Takeda Canada, and Intuitive Surgical. James J. Jung and Arash Kashfi and Sahil Sharma have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 1.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 11.Blikkendaal MD, Driessen SRC, Rodrigues SP, Rhemrev JPT, Smeets MJGH, Dankelman J, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW (2017) Surgical flow disturbances in dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites: an observational study to assess its supposed superiority over conventional suites. Surg Endosc 31:288–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4971-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Duff SN, Windham TC, Wiegmann DA, Kring J, Schaus JD, Malony R, Boquet A (2010) Identification and classification of flow disruptions in the operating room during two types of general surgery procedures. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society annual meeting. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, pp 884–888Google Scholar
- 21.Health C for D and Event Problem R Codes—Device Problem Code Hierarchy. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/ReportingAdverseEvents/EventProblemCodes/ucm134761.htm. Accessed 2 Sept 2017
- 22.CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=803.3. Accessed 2 Sept 2017
- 26.Riggs MK, Bohm MR, Mountain PJ (2016) Examining relationships between device complexity and failure modes of minimally invasive surgical staplers. In: ASME 2016 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Phoenix, pp V003T04A014–V003T04A014Google Scholar
- 29.Albayati MA, Gohel MS, Patel SR, Riga CV, Cheshire NJW, Bicknell CD (2011) Identification of patient safety improvement targets in successful vascular and endovascular procedures: analysis of 251 hours of complex arterial surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 41:795–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.01.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Wubben I, van Manen JG, van den Akker BJ, Vaartjes SR, van Harten WH (2010) Equipment-related incidents in the operating room: an analysis of occurrence, underlying causes and consequences for the clinical process. BMJ Qual Saf 19:e64–e64. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.037515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar