Modification of Surgical Instruments: A Need of the Hour

Ghulam Rasool Tariq; Saqib Ur Rehman; Uzma Rasool

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v74i6.10899

Authors

Ghulam Rasool Tariq Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Kharian/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Saqib Ur Rehman Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Kharian/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Uzma Rasool Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Combined Military Hospital Kharian/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i6.10899

Keywords:

Innovation, Instruments, Invention, Modification, Surgical.

Abstract

Objective: To modify some basic surgical instruments for surgeon comfort and better operative results without compromising patient safety.

Study Design: Prospective longitudinal study.

Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital, Tarbela Pakistan, from Aug 2022 to July 2023.

Methodology: A total of 100 patients needing various surgical procedures were included in the study. Four commonly used instruments, i.e., Needle Extractor, Deaver Liver Retractor, Mayos’ Needle Holder and Spermatic Cord Holding Forceps, were picked up for modification. A blacksmith modified them in Tarbela under the direct supervision of the 1^st author who conceptualised them. Then, they were practically tested by the 2^nd author in Combined Military Hospital Tarbela on 100 patients for Needle Extractors, 20 for Liver Retractor, 12 patients for Angled Needle Holder and 25 for Cord Forceps. The 3^rd author did the graphic design. Their functioning was graded/categorised into excellent, good, satisfactory and poor, considering surgeon comfort and patient safety.

Results: Excellent functioning (100%) of almost all instruments was achieved with surgeon comfort and patient safety in mind, except for the Liver Retractor, which needs a little further modification/alteration for optimal operative results.

Conclusion: Emphasis is given to the modification of surgical instruments by the young budding surgeons who have ample potential for that and need encouragement in this regard.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

de Boer E, Harlaar NJ, Taruttis A, Nagengast WB, Rosenthal EL, Ntziachristos V et al. Optical innovations in Surgery. Br J Surg 2015: 102: e56–e72. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9713

Diana M, Marescaux J. Robotic surgery. Br J Surg 2015: 102: e15–e28.

Tatiana C, Shawn M. Ergonomics in Surgery: A Review. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2018; 24(1): 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000456

Tatiana C, Jasmine TK, Shawn AM. Ergonomics in gynecologic surgery. 2018; 36(6): 432-440.

https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000502

Olivia CT, Kristine K, Kenneth H. Ergonomics: making the OR a comfortable place. Int Urogynecol J 2018; 29(7): 1065-1066.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3674-7

Yona V , Ksenia AA , Justin MM , John V, Yifei M, Raghav G, et al. Ergonomic hazards in otolaryngology. 2018; 129(2): 370-376.

https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27496

Ran B, Huang B, Liang S, Hou Y. Surgical Instrument Detection Algorithm Based on Improved YOLOv7x. Sensors 2023; 23(11): 5037. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23115037

O’ shea P. Future Medicine shaped by an interdisciplinary new Biology. Lancet 2012; 379(9825); 1544-1550.

Heather MW, Vivian J, Lake C, Sandra MS, Quintin LW, Irina AB. Surgical Instrument Designers and Inventors-Where are the Women? Am Surg 2023; 31348231172164.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348231172164

Lindsay EB, Fu JL, Melissa AD, Lucy BS , Judy Y , Charlotte JYH, et al. Gender Disparity in Surgical Device Patents: A Five-year Trend From Canada and the United States. Surg Res 2022; 280: 248-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.07.016

Brianna LS, Paul T, Kyle CW , Robert C, Alexander Y, Jonathan D , et al. Trends in Surgical Patents Held by Surgeons From 1993 to 2018. Ann Surg 2022; 276(6): e1107-e1113.

https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005032

Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM. Innovation in Surgery; a historical perspective. Ann Surg 2006; 244(5): 686-693.

Harrison G, Gannon WL. Victor Frankenstein's Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790. Sci Eng Ethics 2015; 21(5): 1139-1157.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9588-y

Vuille-Dit-Bille RN. Special issue on surgical innovation: new surgical devices, techniques, and progress in surgical training. J Int Med Res 2020; 48(3): 300060519897649.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060519897649

Dejong CHC, Earnshaw JJ. Surgical innovation.Br J Surg 2015: 102: e102–e107.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9727

Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM. Innovation in Surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 2006; 244: 686-693.

Harvey E. Surgical innovation is harder than it looks. Can J Surg 2017; 60: 148. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.006217

Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM. Surgical Innovation and Evaluation. Evaluation and Stages of Surgical Innovation. Lancet 2009; 374: 1089–1096.

McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009; 374(9695): 1105-1112.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8

Lipson H. Frontiers in Additive Manufacturing, the Shape of Things to Come: Summary Report. The Bridge; Linking Engineering and Society; 2012.

Kaygan H, Kaygan P. Clients and carers: Healthcare professionals’ roles in medical device development processes in SMEs. Design J 2024: 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2024.2420152

Roberts J. Technology Valorisation in Open Innovation Systems: A Two-Phase Empirical Study of the Scottish Medical Technology Sector. In: Dekkers, R., Morel, L. (eds) European Perspectives on Innovation Management. Springer, Cham; 2024.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41796-2_6

Pandya, A. ChatGPT-Enabled daVinci Surgical Robot Prototype: Advancements and Limitations. Robotics 2023; 12: 97.

https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics12040097