Avoiding wrong site surgery: A systematic review

John Devine, Norman Chutkan, Daniel C. Norvell, Joseph R. Dettori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

80 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To report the incidence and causes of wrong site surgery and determine what preoperative measures are effective in preventing wrong site surgery. Summary of Background Data. From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Commission (JC) sentinel event statistics database ranked wrong site surgery as the second most frequently reported event with 455 of 3548 sentinel events (12.8%). Although the event seems to be rare, the incidence of these complications has been difficult to measure and quantify. The implications for wrong site surgery go beyond the effects to the patient. Such an event has profound medical, legal, social, and emotional implications. Methods. A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1990 and December 2008. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify the articles defining wrong site surgery and reporting wrong site events. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results. The estimated rate of wrong site surgery varies widely ranging from 0.09 to 4.5 per 10,000 surgeries performed. There is no literature to substantiate the effectiveness of the current JC Universal Protocol in decreasing the rate of wrong site, wrong level surgery. Conclusion. Wrong site surgery may be preventable. We suggest that the North American Spine Society and JC checklists are insufficient on their own to minimize this complication. Therefore, in addition to these protocols, we recommend intraoperative imaging after exposureand marking of a fixed anatomic structure. This imaging should be compared with routine preoperative studies to determine the correct site for spine surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S28-S36
JournalSpine
Volume35
Issue numberSUPPL. 9S
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2010

Fingerprint

Medical Errors
Joints
Databases
Incidence
Checklist
Consensus
Spine
Language

Keywords

  • Wrong level
  • Wrong patient
  • Wrong side
  • Wrong site

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Devine, J., Chutkan, N., Norvell, D. C., & Dettori, J. R. (2010). Avoiding wrong site surgery: A systematic review. Spine, 35(SUPPL. 9S), S28-S36. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833ac

Avoiding wrong site surgery : A systematic review. / Devine, John; Chutkan, Norman; Norvell, Daniel C.; Dettori, Joseph R.

In: Spine, Vol. 35, No. SUPPL. 9S, 01.04.2010, p. S28-S36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Devine, J, Chutkan, N, Norvell, DC & Dettori, JR 2010, 'Avoiding wrong site surgery: A systematic review', Spine, vol. 35, no. SUPPL. 9S, pp. S28-S36. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833ac
Devine J, Chutkan N, Norvell DC, Dettori JR. Avoiding wrong site surgery: A systematic review. Spine. 2010 Apr 1;35(SUPPL. 9S):S28-S36. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833ac
Devine, John ; Chutkan, Norman ; Norvell, Daniel C. ; Dettori, Joseph R. / Avoiding wrong site surgery : A systematic review. In: Spine. 2010 ; Vol. 35, No. SUPPL. 9S. pp. S28-S36.
@article{73cc64f32ca8457faeb23f920ceb54d8,
title = "Avoiding wrong site surgery: A systematic review",
abstract = "Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To report the incidence and causes of wrong site surgery and determine what preoperative measures are effective in preventing wrong site surgery. Summary of Background Data. From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Commission (JC) sentinel event statistics database ranked wrong site surgery as the second most frequently reported event with 455 of 3548 sentinel events (12.8{\%}). Although the event seems to be rare, the incidence of these complications has been difficult to measure and quantify. The implications for wrong site surgery go beyond the effects to the patient. Such an event has profound medical, legal, social, and emotional implications. Methods. A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1990 and December 2008. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify the articles defining wrong site surgery and reporting wrong site events. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results. The estimated rate of wrong site surgery varies widely ranging from 0.09 to 4.5 per 10,000 surgeries performed. There is no literature to substantiate the effectiveness of the current JC Universal Protocol in decreasing the rate of wrong site, wrong level surgery. Conclusion. Wrong site surgery may be preventable. We suggest that the North American Spine Society and JC checklists are insufficient on their own to minimize this complication. Therefore, in addition to these protocols, we recommend intraoperative imaging after exposureand marking of a fixed anatomic structure. This imaging should be compared with routine preoperative studies to determine the correct site for spine surgery.",
keywords = "Wrong level, Wrong patient, Wrong side, Wrong site",
author = "John Devine and Norman Chutkan and Norvell, {Daniel C.} and Dettori, {Joseph R.}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833ac",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "S28--S36",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "SUPPL. 9S",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Avoiding wrong site surgery

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Devine, John

AU - Chutkan, Norman

AU - Norvell, Daniel C.

AU - Dettori, Joseph R.

PY - 2010/4/1

Y1 - 2010/4/1

N2 - Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To report the incidence and causes of wrong site surgery and determine what preoperative measures are effective in preventing wrong site surgery. Summary of Background Data. From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Commission (JC) sentinel event statistics database ranked wrong site surgery as the second most frequently reported event with 455 of 3548 sentinel events (12.8%). Although the event seems to be rare, the incidence of these complications has been difficult to measure and quantify. The implications for wrong site surgery go beyond the effects to the patient. Such an event has profound medical, legal, social, and emotional implications. Methods. A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1990 and December 2008. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify the articles defining wrong site surgery and reporting wrong site events. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results. The estimated rate of wrong site surgery varies widely ranging from 0.09 to 4.5 per 10,000 surgeries performed. There is no literature to substantiate the effectiveness of the current JC Universal Protocol in decreasing the rate of wrong site, wrong level surgery. Conclusion. Wrong site surgery may be preventable. We suggest that the North American Spine Society and JC checklists are insufficient on their own to minimize this complication. Therefore, in addition to these protocols, we recommend intraoperative imaging after exposureand marking of a fixed anatomic structure. This imaging should be compared with routine preoperative studies to determine the correct site for spine surgery.

AB - Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To report the incidence and causes of wrong site surgery and determine what preoperative measures are effective in preventing wrong site surgery. Summary of Background Data. From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Commission (JC) sentinel event statistics database ranked wrong site surgery as the second most frequently reported event with 455 of 3548 sentinel events (12.8%). Although the event seems to be rare, the incidence of these complications has been difficult to measure and quantify. The implications for wrong site surgery go beyond the effects to the patient. Such an event has profound medical, legal, social, and emotional implications. Methods. A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1990 and December 2008. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify the articles defining wrong site surgery and reporting wrong site events. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results. The estimated rate of wrong site surgery varies widely ranging from 0.09 to 4.5 per 10,000 surgeries performed. There is no literature to substantiate the effectiveness of the current JC Universal Protocol in decreasing the rate of wrong site, wrong level surgery. Conclusion. Wrong site surgery may be preventable. We suggest that the North American Spine Society and JC checklists are insufficient on their own to minimize this complication. Therefore, in addition to these protocols, we recommend intraoperative imaging after exposureand marking of a fixed anatomic structure. This imaging should be compared with routine preoperative studies to determine the correct site for spine surgery.

KW - Wrong level

KW - Wrong patient

KW - Wrong side

KW - Wrong site

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77951768022&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77951768022&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833ac

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d833ac

M3 - Article

C2 - 20407349

AN - SCOPUS:77951768022

VL - 35

SP - S28-S36

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - SUPPL. 9S

ER -