closure, there are all kinds of alternatives — adhesives, zipper clo-
sures, staples — but surgeons aren't evaluating or adopting them.
For some reason, the surgical community is slower to adopt inno-
vations for sharps safety than more complicated medical devices
such as robotics."
Why the reluctance? Dr. Mitchell believes some surgeons and surgi-
cal teams may be reluctant to adopt sharps safety technologies
because they don't feel comfortable using them. But as with many
transitions, this one appears to be generational.
"As we're starting to see younger surgeons come into clinical and
surgical care, they may be more likely to adopt newer technologies
specifically for sharps safety because they seem more hyperaware of
the risk of infectious diseases," says Dr. Mitchell.
If suture injuries are usually suffered by surgeons, why don't more
of them seem to care enough to change their practices? "That surpris-
es me," says Dr. Mitchell. "When I pull up data about sharps injuries in
the OR from 2018, sutures were responsible for 45.6% of them," she
says. Furthermore, her data show that 52.8% of all sharps injuries in
the OR occur to physicians.
As a result, Dr. Mitchell is concerned about infection risks in the OR.
If the surgeon gets stuck with a suture and is bleeding through single
or even double-gloves, there is potential cross-transmission of the
physician's and patient's blood," she says. "There's the potential the
surgeon could expose the patient to infectious diseases, which is a
whole different risk profile for the facility from a liability point of
view."
Dr. Mitchell says sharps injuries to sterile processing personnel
usually occur as they are transporting soiled instruments to their
area, as well as during the initial washing of the items during the
decontamination phase. Interestingly, she says, "We know from our
8 8 • O U T PA T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E • F E B R U A R Y 2 0 2 0
