Skip to main content

Laparotomy Pads

Large multi-layered woven cotton surgical sponges (lap pads, lap sponges, abdominal packs) — typically 18 × 18 in or 4 × 18 in — used in every open RU / urogyn / general operation for fluid absorption, visceral retraction, hemostatic packing, contamination barrier, and gravimetric blood-loss quantification. Each contains a radiopaque marker (barium-sulfate strip or thread); modern variants add radiofrequency-detection (RFD) tags for retained-sponge prevention.[1][2][3][4]

Design​

  • Multi-layered woven cotton, hemmed edges, large absorbent surface area; standard 18 × 18 in and 4 × 18 in sizes.
  • Radiopaque marker (barium-sulfate–impregnated strip or thread) — detectable on plain radiograph and fluoroscopy.[1][2][3]
  • Radiofrequency-detection (RFD) tag in modern variants — adds ~ $0.17 per 4×18 sponge; 100% sensitivity for retained-sponge detection in the Inaba 2016 prospective emergency-surgery series.[4]
  • Long blue tail for tracking out of body cavities.

Reconstructive-Urology and Urogyn Uses​

Visceral retraction during open / hand-assisted urogyn / RU surgery​

  • Small-bowel and sigmoid retraction out of the pelvis during open sacrocolpopexy, abdominal hysterectomy with concomitant urogyn repair, open ureteral reimplantation, Boari flap, ileal-conduit / neobladder construction, augmentation cystoplasty, open RP / RC.
  • Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery — surgical towels or lap pads inserted through the hand-access port for visceral retraction.[5]
  • Bladder, ureter, and bowel protection during deep pelvic dissection.

Hemostatic packing — damage-control and obstetric hemorrhage​

  • Abdominopelvic packing for life-threatening coagulopathy — Stone 1983: 4–17 lap pads packed into the abdomen for tamponade, abdomen closed under tension, return for definitive surgery after coagulopathy correction. Survival rose from ~ 7% to ~ 65% in lethal-coagulopathy patients.[6]
  • Obstetric hemorrhage from placenta-accreta spectrum — Brown 2025 ACOG technique: protect bowel with plastic drape, pressure-pack peritoneal cavity with lap sponges. Directly applicable in urogyn / urologic cases complicated by life-threatening pelvic hemorrhage (eg, posterior-vaginal-wall dissection with rectal injury, retropubic plexus injury during sling / mesh excision, iliac-vessel injury).[7]

Fluid absorption / field management​

  • Continuous absorption of blood and irrigation in the operative field; far superior to 4×4 Ray-Tec sponges for high-volume absorption.

Contamination barrier​

  • Placed over bowel during GI work (eg, ileal-conduit anastomosis, augmentation enterotomy) as a bacterial-strikethrough barrier.
  • Bezhentseva 2022 — increasing sponge layer-density significantly reduces bacterial-strikethrough colonization, though even 6–8 layers do not provide complete protection.[8]

Quantitative Blood-Loss Estimation​

ACOG recommends gravimetric weighing of blood-soaked materials including lap sponges, subtracting dry weight to calculate blood loss (1 g = 1 mL).[9] Real-world performance caveats:

  • Gravimetric overestimates by mean ~ 466 mL because the sponges absorb contaminants (irrigation, amniotic fluid).[10]
  • Visual estimation of blood on lap pads is highly inaccurate — Vesely 2025: all experience levels (students, residents, attendings) overestimate.[11]
  • Colorimetric image-recognition systems (Triton) correlate r = 0.93 with rinsed-Hb standard — significantly more accurate than visual or gravimetric.[10]

Retained Surgical Sponge (Gossypiboma) — The Feared Complication​

  • ~ 68% of all retained foreign bodies are surgical sponges; incidence ~ 1 per 5,000 operations.[12]
  • Risk factors: emergency surgery, unexpected procedure change, high BMI, high blood loss. 88% of retained-sponge cases had a falsely-correct final count — counting alone is insufficient.[13]
  • Clinical presentations: early exudative (abscess, peritonitis) or late aseptic fibrous (adhesions, fistulae to adjacent organs — bladder, bowel, vagina).[1]
  • CT is the diagnostic method of choice; the radiopaque marker is not always a reliable sign on imaging.[14]

Prevention — Defense in Depth​

StrategyEvidence
Standardized manual counting before / during / afterWHO Safe Surgery default; insufficient alone (Gawande 2003 — 88% counts falsely correct in retained-sponge cases)[12][13]
Radiopaque marker in all body-cavity spongesStandard since the Williams 1978 description[2]
RFD-tagged spongesInaba 2016 prospective emergency-surgery cohort (n = 2,051) — retained sponges detected in 0.5% before closure; 100% sensitivity, no missed sponges[4]
Barcode scanningDetects significantly more count discrepancies than manual counting alone[12]
Intraoperative radiographRecommended routinely or selectively in high-risk cases (emergency, unexpected change, high BMI)[13]

ACS and ACOG both recommend standardized counting + radiopaque sponges in body cavities + radiographic imaging when counts are discrepant.[15][16]

Practical Pearls​

  • Always use radiopaque + RFD-tagged sponges in body cavities — both are standard of care.
  • Tail out — keep the blue tail external whenever possible during packing; counts the sponge and protects against retention.
  • Moisten before retraction — reduces bowel-serosal trauma.
  • Layer count when packing pre-emptively for high-risk cases (placenta accreta, ruptured iliac, large retroperitoneal exposure) — count is harder during a bleeding emergency.
  • Use Triton-class colorimetric quantification when QBL accuracy matters (massive transfusion threshold decisions); fallback gravimetric overestimates by ~ 466 mL.
  • For damage-control packing, the Stone 1983 protocol (4–17 pads to tamponade, close under tension, return for second look after coagulopathy correction) remains the conceptual reference.[6]
  • High-risk cases (emergency, BMI ≥ 30, large blood loss, unexpected procedure change) warrant routine intraoperative radiograph before closure regardless of count.[13]

Limitations​

  • Even RFD-tagged sponges require active scanning — RFD doesn't auto-alert; the wand must be passed before closure.
  • Sponges with broken radiopaque threads may be invisible on radiograph; visual inspection of integrity matters.
  • Bacterial strikethrough is not eliminated by even 6–8 layers — sponges are a barrier, not a seal.[8]
  • QBL gravimetric inaccuracy in obstetric / irrigation-heavy cases.

See also: Ring (Sponge) Forceps, Kittner Dissector, Bladder Scanner.

References​

1. Sakorafas GH, Sampanis D, Lappas C, et al. "Retained surgical sponges: what the practicing clinician should know." Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395(8):1001–7. doi:10.1007/s00423-010-0684-4

2. Williams RG, Bragg DG, Nelson JA. "Gossypiboma — the problem of the retained surgical sponge." Radiology. 1978;129(2):323–6. doi:10.1148/129.2.323

3. Wilson OJ, Young BF. "The radio-opacity of surgical and radiological devices used in vivo: a test method for markers in surgical gauze." Phys Med Biol. 1987;32(10):1283–9. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/32/10/007

4. Inaba K, Okoye O, Aksoy H, et al. "The role of radio frequency detection system embedded surgical sponges in preventing retained surgical sponges: a prospective evaluation in patients undergoing emergency surgery." Ann Surg. 2016;264(4):599–604. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001872

5. Nakajima K, Milsom JW, Margolin DA, Szilagy EJ. "Use of the surgical towel in colorectal hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS)." Surg Endosc. 2004;18(3):552–3. doi:10.1007/s00464-003-8173-2

6. Stone HH, Strom PR, Mullins RJ. "Management of the major coagulopathy with onset during laparotomy." Ann Surg. 1983;197(5):532–5. doi:10.1097/00000658-198305000-00005

7. Brown KS, Goodman L, García G, Einerson BD, Kaiser JE. "Accreta ready: mastering abdominopelvic packing for crisis situations." Obstet Gynecol. 2025;145(6):749. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005908

8. Bezhentseva A, St Germaine LL, Hoffmann DE. "Efficacy of laparotomy sponges to reduce bacterial contamination using an in vitro gastrointestinal surgery model." PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0267293. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267293

9. Committee on Obstetric Practice. "Quantitative blood loss in obstetric hemorrhage: ACOG Committee Opinion No. 794." Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(6):e150–6. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003564

10. Holmes AA, Konig G, Ting V, et al. "Clinical evaluation of a novel system for monitoring surgical hemoglobin loss." Anesth Analg. 2014;119(3):588–94. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000181

11. Vesely BD, Kipp J, Leffler L, et al. "Accuracy of estimated blood loss on common operating room items among medical professionals." J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2025;115(3):23–011. doi:10.7547/23-011

12. Freitas PS, Silveira RC, Clark AM, Galvão CM. "Surgical count process for prevention of retained surgical items: an integrative review." J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(13–14):1835–47. doi:10.1111/jocn.13216

13. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. "Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery." N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):229–35. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa021721

14. Kalovidouris A, Kehagias D, Moulopoulos L, et al. "Abdominal retained surgical sponges: CT appearance." Eur Radiol. 1999;9(7):1407–10. doi:10.1007/s003300050858

15. Statler JD, Miller DL, Dixon RG, et al. "Society of Interventional Radiology position statement: prevention of unintentionally retained foreign bodies during interventional radiology procedures." J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(11):1561–2. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2011.07.011

16. Committee on Patient Safety and Quality Improvement. "Committee Opinion No. 464: Patient safety in the surgical environment." Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):786–90. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f69b22