CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04097678Updated Sep 19, 2024Results posted

Intraoperative Radiographic Detection of Retained Surgical Sponges

An interventional study of Retained Surgical Sponge in Surgical Sponge, Retained, sponsored by Twin Cities Spine Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-09-19.

Sponsored by Twin Cities Spine Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
146
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This prospective study will determine the efficacy of intraoperative x-ray to identify retained surgical sponges. The recommended practice for finding a retained sponge is by radiography. The purpose is to find out how useful plain x-rays are in open posterior lumbar spine surgery, information which is presently unavailable. The specific aim is to compare the sensitivity (seeing a sponge when one is actually present) and specificity (not seeing a sponge when one is not present) of radiography of the surgical field for three conditions: viewing one lateral radiograph versus viewing one anteroposterior radiograph versus viewing two radiographs together, one lateral and one anteroposterior.

Read the detailed description

This is a prospective, randomized study with two cohorts: one experimental and one control. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) radiographs are routinely obtained as standard of care during spine surgery to confirm proper implant placement. These images will be used in this study. In one-half of the study subjects, after all sponges are removed, a surgical sponge will be intentionally placed in the surgical field prior to imaging. Postoperatively, each subject's images will be assessed for the presence or absence of a retained surgical sponge. Images will be independently read by two investigators. When there is discordance, the images will be adjudicated by a third. Interobserver agreement will be quantified using the Kappa statistic. Those reading images will not have participated in the surgery.

02

Conditions studied

  • Surgical Sponge, Retained

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • lumbar spine surgery
  • radiographic imaging
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients undergoing open posterior instrumented lumbar spine surgery.
  • Read and understand English.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pregnancy.
  • Patients who do not consent to research.
  • Patients less than 18 years old at the time of consent.
  • Do not read and understand English.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
146 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Retained Sponge Group

    Just prior to imaging, the surgeon will purposely place a sponge in the wound. Two radiographs will be taken of the spine (AP and Lateral views).

    Other: Retained Surgical Sponge

  • No intervention
    No Retained Sponge Group

    No sponge will be placed in the wound. Two radiographs will be taken of the spine (AP and Lateral views).

Interventions

  • OtherRetained Surgical Sponge

    A surgical sponge will be intentionally placed in the surgical field prior to final imaging and then removed. Postoperatively, images will be assessed for the presence or absence of a retained surgical sponge.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Accuracy

    Reviewer accuracy is the agreement (Cohen's Kappa) between the true condition and the readers' interpretation with 1) one lateral (LAT) image, 2) one anteroposterior (AP) image, and 3) AP and LAT images together.

    Time frame: Intraoperative

  2. Interobserver Reproducibility

    Interobserver Reproducibility is the agreement (Cohen's Kappa) between observers interpretations

    Time frame: Intraoperative

  3. Intraobserver Reproducibility

    Intraobserver Reproducibility is the agreement (Cohen's Kapp) of an observer with himself

    Time frame: Intraoperative

  4. Sensitivity

    Sensitivity is the percentage of all images appearing to have a sponge in which a sponge was truly present

    Time frame: Intraoperative

  5. Specificity

    Specificity is the percentage of all images appearing to not have a sponge in which a sponge was truly not present

    Time frame: Intraoperative

06

Results

Posted Sep 19, 2024

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneRetained Sponge GroupNo Retained Sponge Group
Started7373
Completed5655
Not completed1718
Withdrew: No radiographs obtained during surgery1718

Outcome measures

PrimaryAccuracy

Reviewer accuracy is the agreement (Cohen's Kappa) between the true condition and the readers' interpretation with 1) one lateral (LAT) image, 2) one anteroposterior (AP) image, and 3) AP and LAT images together.

Time frame:
Intraoperative
Reported as:
Number · Cohen's Kappa
Accuracy
Cohen's KappaLateral Image AloneAnteroposterior Image AloneLateral and Anteroposterior Images Together
Accuracy0.760.730.80
PrimaryInterobserver Reproducibility

Interobserver Reproducibility is the agreement (Cohen's Kappa) between observers interpretations

Time frame:
Intraoperative
Reported as:
Number · Cohen's Kappa
Interobserver Reproducibility
Cohen's KappaLateral Image AloneAnteroposterior Image AloneLateral and Anteroposterior Images Together
Interobserver Reproducibility0.890.850.96
PrimaryIntraobserver Reproducibility

Intraobserver Reproducibility is the agreement (Cohen's Kapp) of an observer with himself

Time frame:
Intraoperative
Reported as:
Number · Cohen's Kappa
Intraobserver Reproducibility
Cohen's KappaLateral Image AloneAnteroposterior Image AloneLateral and Anteroposterior Images Together
Intraobserver Reproducibility0.910.880.96
PrimarySensitivity

Sensitivity is the percentage of all images appearing to have a sponge in which a sponge was truly present

Time frame:
Intraoperative
Reported as:
Number · percentage of correct interpretations
Sensitivity
percentage of correct interpretationsLateral Image AloneAnteroposterior Image AloneLateral and Anteroposterior Images Together
Sensitivity828687
PrimarySpecificity

Specificity is the percentage of all images appearing to not have a sponge in which a sponge was truly not present

Time frame:
Intraoperative
Reported as:
Number · percentage of correct interpretations
Specificity
percentage of correct interpretationsLateral Image AloneAnteroposterior Image AloneLateral and Anteroposterior Images Together
Specificity958893

Adverse events

Collected over Intraoperative. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Retained Sponge Group0/56 (0%)0/56 (0%)0/56 (0%)
No Retained Sponge Group0/55 (0%)0/55 (0%)0/55 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Retained Sponge GroupNo Retained Sponge GroupTotal
Mean63.2 ± 11.263.4 ± 11.363.3 ± 11.3
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Retained Sponge GroupNo Retained Sponge GroupTotal
Female242650
Male322961
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Retained Sponge GroupNo Retained Sponge GroupTotal
Count of participants——0
Body Mass Index
Body Mass Index(kg/m^2)Retained Sponge GroupNo Retained Sponge GroupTotal
Median30.4 (19.5 to 46.0)29.4 (17.8 to 53.7)30.0 (17.8 to 53.7)
07

Study locations

1 site
  • Twin Cities Spine Center
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 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 Jul;207(1):80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.047. Epub 2008 May 23. PubMed 18589366 ↗
  • Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007 Apr;138(2):170-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.08.001. Epub 2007 Feb 1. PubMed 17275034 ↗
  • Turgut M, Akhaddar A, Turgut AT. Retention of Nonabsorbable Hemostatic Materials (Retained Surgical Sponge, Gossypiboma, Textiloma, Gauzoma, Muslinoma) After Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Cases Reported During the Last Half-Century. World Neurosurg. 2018 Aug;116:255-267. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.119. Epub 2018 May 26. PubMed 29807184 ↗
  • Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005 May;37(5):360-3. PubMed 15883903 ↗
  • Revesz G, Siddiqi TS, Buchheit WA, Bonitatibus M. Detection of retained surgical sponges. Radiology. 1983 Nov;149(2):411-3. doi: 10.1148/radiology.149.2.6622683. PubMed 6622683 ↗
  • Jones SR, Carley S, Harrison M. An introduction to power and sample size estimation. Emerg Med J. 2003 Sep;20(5):453-8. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.5.453. Erratum In: Emerg Med J. 2004 Jan;21(1):126. Emerg Med J. 2023 Oct;40(10):e4. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.5.453corr2. PubMed 12954688 ↗
  • Hellbach K, Beller E, Schindler A, Schoeppe F, Hesse N, Baumann A, Schinner R, Auweter S, Hauke C, Radicke M, Meinel FG. Improved Detection of Foreign Bodies on Radiographs Using X-ray Dark-Field and Phase-Contrast Imaging. Invest Radiol. 2018 Jun;53(6):352-356. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000450. PubMed 29420322 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Jun 3, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — There is not a plan to make individual participant data (IPD) available.

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04097678
Lead sponsor
Twin Cities Spine Center
Collaborators
Allina Health System
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 20, 2019
Start date
Nov 10, 2020
Primary completion
Dec 8, 2021
Completion
Dec 8, 2021
Results posted
Sep 19, 2024
Last update
Sep 19, 2024

Study contacts

Amir A Mehbod, MD
principal investigator · Twin Cities Spine Center

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion