Rented OPME instrument sets: how to control intake, use and return

Published on November 7, 2026 · 7 min read

The situation of those who rent and those who receive

Companies that supply boxes of instruments for placing prostheses live with a known problem: the box has to arrive complete and on time, come back complete, and the argument over what was missing tends to come afterwards. The literature records late deliveries that disturb reprocessing and lead to delays and even surgery cancellation, as well as incomplete sets and losses. [25]

On the hospital side, the problem is similar. When a surgery is cancelled, the box has already been processed. At one university hospital, 854 consigned boxes were processed and not used, an estimated waste of R$ 34,340.18. That figure is an average from the study, not a cost per instrument, and it is not a saving obtained with RFID. [19]

Unmarked instruments and the identity of each piece

Old instruments, rental boxes and sets for OPME implants often have no marking. RFID gives them an identity without outside engraving. In an assessment at a French hospital, RFID was recommended precisely for loaned material.

Where Datamatrix and UDI already exist, they remain the manufacturer's identifier, and RFID adds fast batch reading. The same instrument can have several identifiers registered, such as the supplier code, the Datamatrix and the UDI, as long as each identifier is unique to each instrument.

What reading gives each side

For the supplier, the gain is knowing what is in each box and proving what was delivered and what was received. In practice, this shows up in five points:

1. Checked departure and return. RFID reading checks, instrument by instrument, what left and what came back, with date and time. Supplier and hospital share the same record.
2. Less argument over missing and damaged items. With each piece identified, it is clear what was delivered, what returned and in what condition. A Brazilian report linked the coding of instruments to fewer complaints about material missing from boxes. [26]
3. Complete box before it leaves. The check at assembly shows what is missing or extra before the box goes to the hospital, instead of finding out in the room.
4. Where each box is. Readings at departure, receipt and return give visibility of the box fleet and help plan deliveries in advance.
5. Real use and a right-sized fleet. Knowing what was used and what was not, in each surgery, helps size the number of boxes and trim sets. This requires clinical validation.

What changes for the hospital that receives

The hospital can check the box that arrives against the same record the supplier has. Reading is done with an Identix RFID collector over a non-metallic table, and the readings go to the CME software the hospital already uses, through integration.

At the end of surgery, the scrub nurse or the nurse separates what was used from what was not used, and the count is done with the collector in two stages. Knowing what was used in each surgery helps size the number of boxes and trim sets, which requires clinical validation.

SureKits is the identification and reading layer. It is not CME management software and does not replace what the hospital already has.

Limits and care

1. Several hospitals. An instrument that circulates among several hospitals only brings the full benefit if their receiving areas also read the tags. That requires agreement between the parties.
2. Closed box. Batch reading requires the instruments on a non-metallic table, not inside the closed box.
3. Numbers from technology vendors. There are reports of large reductions in losses with RFID, but without a public methodology. We do not use those numbers.
4. Contracts and responsibilities. SureKits identifies and records. Contracts, deadlines and responsibilities stay the same.

What is not proven yet

There is no demonstration of a causal reduction in losses, repairs or breakage with individual RFID on instruments. There is also no robust study attributing to it fewer cancelled surgeries or other clinical outcomes.

The Brazilian report on instrument coding is an implementation report from one CME. [26] The figure for 854 boxes shows the size of the problem and not what RFID would prevent. A pilot with agreed indicators is worth running before any return calculation.

How to start

The company or the hospital can start with simple counting using Identix RFID collectors and later expand to the DR-max reading tables. The tag is applied at the company itself, without sending instruments out, and the method of application is patented so that it does not come off.

There is no need to identify the whole fleet at once. The platform works with RFID and Datamatrix together and accepts the coding the supplier already uses, even if it does not follow GS1 or UDI.

Sources

19. Lopes SG, Poveda VB. Proposta de modelo para cálculo de desperdício associado ao processamento de instrumentais cirúrgicos consignados. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2023;31. doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.6716.4062
25. Addressing Challenges Associated With Loaner Instrument Sets. AORN Journal, 2026 (abstract). unboundmedicine.com
26. Report on implementing traceability in a Brazilian CME: coding of instruments and fewer complaints about missing material in boxes. CBCENF. inscricoes-cbcenf.cofen.gov.br