Quality of surgical instruments.
BACKGROUND
Many surgeons will have encountered the scissors that would not cut, and the artery clip that comes off in a deep difficult location, but it would be reasonable to assume that new instruments should be of assured quality. This study reports the surprising findings of a local quality control exercise for new instruments supplied to a single trust.


METHODS
Between January 2004 and June 2004, all batches of new surgical instruments ordered by the Central Sterile Supplies Department of St Bartholomew's and the Royal London Hospitals were assessed by three clinical engineers, with reference to British Standards (BS) requirements.


RESULTS
Of 4800 instruments examined, 15% had potential problems. These included 116 with machining burrs and debris in the teeth of the tissue-holding regions, 71 defects of ratcheted instruments, 34 scissors with deficient cutting action, and 35 tissue forceps protruding guide pins. In addition, 254 instruments did not have a visible manufacturer's mark.


CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the value of local quality control for surgical instruments. This is of importance in an increasingly hazard-conscious environment, where there are concerns over instrument sterilisation, surgical glove puncture and the potential for transmission of blood-borne and prion diseases.
Brophy
T
T
Department of Clinical Physics, St Bartholomew's and Royal London Hospitals, London, UK.
Srodon
P D
PD
Briggs
C
C
Barry
P
P
Steatham
J
J
Birch
M J
MJ
D004867:Equipment Design; D004868:Equipment Failure; D011786:Quality Control; D013525:Surgical Instruments / Q000592:standards*