SEO in surgical instrumentation : a story of evolution

For a long time, the management of surgical instruments was built without a common reference framework, according to the needs of surgeons, local practices and industrial initiatives.

However, behind each pair of pliers, each spreader, each pair of scissors, there is a name, a function, a specific use... and often, several names depending on who you talk to.

How, in this context, can we ensure reliable logistics, consistent quality, and effective coordination between hospital services and suppliers?

The first instrument references were not born in hospitals, but among the manufacturers themselves. From the 19th century, in France as in Germany, the companies Collin , Chevalier , Mathieu and Aesculap published detailed catalogs. These documents, designed for sale, quickly became the first technical references for health professionals. They illustrate a growing need for structure, shared understanding, and transmission of knowledge.

But this is only the beginning. While manufacturers were the first to name and classify, hospital management has taken time to organize. From artisanal empiricism to the emergence of powerful digital tools like Atlas InWay, the road has been long.

Three major periods allow us to better understand this evolution of referencing in instrumentation:

1. The beginnings: the absence of standardization

   For decades, each healthcare facility operated according to its own logic: customary names, internal codes, local designations. The same instrument could have several names depending on the department or surgeon. This lack of standardization made communication complex, training difficult, and exchanges between departments—or between hospitals—nearly impossible.

   In sterilization, this situation had a hidden but heavy cost: time lost to identify a lost instrument, unnecessary duplicates in inventory, and recomposition errors. A 2018 study conducted at the Hospices Civils de Lyon showed that an unidentified instrument could take up to 60 minutes of cumulative time to be reintegrated into an operating box.

   This period was primarily marked by paper-based, artisanal, and often empirical management. Supplier catalogs remained the only common references... but without interoperability with hospital systems.

   
   

2. Attempts at structuring: towards a collective consciousness

   With the professionalization of hospital sterilization, attempts at harmonization have emerged. Pharmacists, sterilization managers, and operating room teams have begun to rationalize their compositions, standardize instruments by specialty, and create internal databases.

   The arrival of the first traceability software marked a turning point. These systems made it possible to document, for the first time in a structured manner, the stages of the sterilization cycle.

   But this advance also revealed a major limitation: the software publishers did not provide basic data on the instruments. It was therefore up to the institutions themselves to create, name, describe, and categorize each instrument. The result: considerable time wasted, data entry errors, duplicate entries, and inconsistencies.

   Instead of simplifying management, the systems sometimes froze structural errors in databases that were supposed to be permanent.

   Projects carried out in this direction, often supported by institutions such as ANAP, have enabled local optimization initiatives to be initiated. But without a common language between institutions, the effort remained fragmented.

   
   

3. The digital age: a universal language for intelligent management

   We are only just beginning to enter this new era.

   
   

   Manufacturers continue to create specific references for each instrument. Each new product is given a distinct marketing name, and every tiny difference becomes a selling point. This strategy generates growing confusion among healthcare professionals.

   And manufacturers, far from correcting this complexity, sometimes seem to maintain it, because they remain the only ones who can "translate" their own language.

   
   

   It is in this context that Atlas InWay appears as a disruptive solution.

   By structuring each type of instrument around a universal generic reference, Atlas InWay restores order where chaos once reigned. It doesn't deny the differences between models, but categorizes them according to a shared logic. Duplicates disappear. Compositions are optimized. Purchases become comparable. Data becomes a strategic lever.

   
   

   Atlas InWay, with its unique language, marks the entry into a logic of collective intelligence, capable of uniting hospitals, suppliers and teams on a common base.

Jean-Paul Averty