Reducing the risk of viral transmission at operation by electronic monitoring of the surgeon-patient barrier

Glove tears during arthroscopic shoulder surgery using solid-core suture

PURPOSE

Surgeons have noticed an increased incidence of finger lacerations associated with arthroscopic knot tying with solid-core suture material. This study examines glove perforations and finger lacerations during arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

METHODS

We collected 400 surgical gloves from 50 consecutive arthroscopic shoulder repair procedures using No. 2 solid-core sutures. Two surgeons using double gloves were involved in every case, with one being responsible for tying all knots. Powder-free latex gloves were worn in all cases. Knots consisted of a sliding stitch of the surgeon's preference followed by 3 half-hitches via a knot-pusher instrument. All gloves were inspected grossly and then tested for tears with an electroconductivity meter.

RESULTS

The knot-tying surgeon had significantly more glove tears than the control (P < .01). Tears were localized to the radial side of the index finger of the glove at the distal interphalangeal joint in all cases. Of the tying surgeon's gloves, 68 (34%) were found to have tears. These included 17 inner gloves (17%) and 51 outer gloves (51%). If an inner glove was torn, the corresponding outer glove was torn in all cases. A mean of 3.96 knots were tied in each case. There was a significantly higher incidence of inner glove tears when more than 3 knots were tied (P < .03). There was no significant difference in glove tears between suture types. Finger lacerations did occur in the absence of glove tears. However, in the presence of an inner glove tear, there was a statistically significant association with a finger laceration at the corresponding level (P < .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative glove tears and subsequent finger lacerations occur with a high frequency when arthroscopic knots are tied with solid-core suture material. Risk can potentially be minimized by frequent glove changes or use of more durable, less penetrable gloves.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study addresses surgeon and patient safety during arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Blunt Tapered and Standard Needles in Closing Abdominal Fascia

Glove perforation frequently occurs during the course of surgical procedures, introducing risks for both surgeons and patients. The aim of this study was to compare the use of blunt tapered and "sharp" needles during abdominal wall closure with respect to the incidence of glove perforation and the convenience of needle handling. A series of 200 patients undergoing laparotomy in a 6-month period for general surgical disorders were randomized to two groups; in one, the abdominal fascia was closed with a blunt tapered needle; in the other, a sharp needle was used. The main outcome measures were glove perforation and convenience of handling the needle. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. In all, 56 glove perforations occurred during 40 (20%) surgical procedures. Perforation rates differed significantly: 12% for the blunt (n = 100) tapered needle and 28% (n = 100) for the sharp needle (p = 0.003). Only in 12 cases (21%) was the glove perforation detected at surgery. The type of needle (odds ratio 0.35, p = 0.006) and time taken to close the fascia (odds ratio 1.001, p = 0.05) significantly affected the risk of glove perforation. At multivariate logistic regression analysis the type of needle (odds ratio 0.23, p = 0.004) and the visual analog linear scale (VAS) for ease of needle handling (odds ratio 1.18, p = 0.019) were important predictive factors for glove perforation. With the blunt tapered needle, the VAS was significantly (p = 0.0003) higher at primary laparotomy than at relaparotomy. Use of the blunt tapered needle reduces the incidence of glove perforation. Laborious closure predicts glove perforation. Blunt tapered needles are less convenient in closing a scarred abdominal fascia.

Glove perforations in open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery: the feasibility of double gloving

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

According to the traditional view, the glove protects the patient from the bacterial growth of the surgeons' hands and doing so prevents infections. Today, with growing incidences of HIV and Hepatitis B and C, surgical gloves are also important as protection for the surgeon. We compared the safety of double indicator gloves to standard single surgical gloves by investigating how often surgical gloves are punctured in laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal surgery.

STUDY

As study material we gathered all gloves that had been used in gastrointestinal surgery in Satakunta Central Hospital during two months. 814 gloves from 274 operations were tested by using standardized water filling test method.

RESULTS

In open surgery 67 gloves out of 694 had been punctured (9.6 percent). Puncture occurred in 22.5 percent of operations (53 out of 236). During open surgery 24 holes out of 35 were undetected with single gloves (69 percent). With double indicator gloves, only 3 out of 31 holes were unnoticed (10 percent). Long duration of operation increased the risk of puncture. In laparoscopic operations 4 gloves out of 120 had been perforated (3.3 percent).

CONCLUSION

Double surgical gloves give markedly better protection in surgery. This is important especially in high risk operations.

The mechanical and microbiological integrity of surgical gloves

BACKGROUND

Several manufacturers supply surgical gloves that have been individually tested (IT) for leaks. Other manufacturers supply gloves in which sample gloves from each batch are tested for leaks (batch tested: BT). The latter brands may be rejected by surgeons because of presumed increased risk of wound infection and staff exposure to patient pathogens. The influence of differences between glove brands on performance in surgery has not been extensively studied. The aims of the present study were to test the mechanical and microbiological integrity of IT compared to BT gloves.

METHODS

A total of 110 unused gloves from each of an IT and a BT brand were tested for leaks, first, by observation of water-jets from water-filled gloves and second, by measuring electrical resistance between inside and outside the glove surfaces, to give a baseline measure. A total of 304 IT and 280 BT gloves were then similarly leak-tested after 98 clean surgical procedures. The hands and gloves of scrub team members were cultured postsurgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1/110 BT and 0/110 IT unused gloves contained leaks (NS, Fisher's exact test). Operative perforation rates were lower for BT compared with IT (8/280 cf. 22/304; P < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). There was no bias in types of operations or scrub team members to account for the difference. Growth of normal skin flora was found on virtually every wearer's hands post-operatively. Similar bacteria were frequently cultured from the outside of gloves at the conclusion of surgery (111/152 pairs IT cf. 122/140 pairs BT; P < 0.01, Fisher's exact test).

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that the clinical performance of BT gloves is no different to IT gloves. There was no significant difference in mechanical leak rates for unused gloves. Paradoxically, although IT gloves were more likely to show macro-perforations after surgery, the incidence of contamination on the surface of BT gloves was greater, possibly reflecting a qualitative difference in glove material. This study suggests that both types of gloves develop microporosity during use, which may allow transfer of bacteria from the surgeon's skin to the surface of the glove.

How should the chest wall be opened at necropsy?

AIMS

To compare several different instruments used to open the chest wall during necropsy and to assess whether any one type reduced the production of sharp rib ends and thus the potential for receiving an injury.

METHODS

During the necropsy the pathologist opened the chest wall using two randomly assigned instruments from a selection of hand saw, electric saw, rib shears, and bread knife. The age, weight, sex, and height of the deceased were recorded, in addition to the textures of the resultant exposed rib ends. During the procedure, the speed, length, production of spray, and site of incision were also noted. The thoracic cavity was inspected and any details of tumours, adhesions, fluid, or organ damage were noted.

RESULTS

Twenty four necropsies were carried out on an equal number of men and women. The total number of ribs that were incised was 422, with 206 through the bony aspect (49%). Sixty seven per cent of the bony rib ends were rough, and this was found to be instrument dependent. The rib shears produced the highest number of rough bony and cartilage rib ends. The electric saw produced the smoothest contoured rib ends. Spray occurred in 29% of cases, exclusively with the use of the electric saw. Organ damage was most frequently associated with the use of the bread knife.

CONCLUSION

Rib shears, the instrument most frequently used to open the chest wall, appear to cause the highest frequency of rough, potentially dangerous rib ends. The electric saw produced the smoothest rib ends, both in cartilage and bone, and thus seems to offer the most efficacious method of reducing the potential hazard associated with ragged, spiky bone ends during the opening of the thoracic cavity. Although each of the procedures detailed in this study was shown to have its own advantages and disadvantages, personal preference and operator experience are perhaps the most important factors in ultimately determining the method used.

Surgeon-patient barrier efficiency monitored with an electronic device in three surgical settings

Blood-borne viral pathogens are an occupational threat to health care workers (HCWs), particularly those in the operating room. A major risk is posed by accidental penetrating injury, but skin contamination with body fluids from an infected patient, with prolonged intimate cutaneous contact, is a frequent occurrence during surgery, carrying further risk of transdermal infection. We have monitored barrier failure in three surgical settings (microsurgery, orthopedic surgery, general surgery) by means of an electronic surveillance device. A total of 111 surgical procedures were monitored: 67 microsurgeries, 22 orthopedic surgeries, and 22 general surgeries. Of the 278 electronic alarms signaling barrier failure, 44 (15.8%) were associated with glove perforation, 39 of which (88.6%) were not perceived by the operator. In 16 of those, the skin was visibly stained with the patient's blood. Altogether, 76 of the alarms (27.3%) were consequent to contacts caused by soaked gowns/sleeves, and 121 (43.5%) were attributed to hydration of latex porosities; 37 alarms (13.4%) were unexplained false positives. On only one occasion did a surgeon observe blood stains on his hands without a previous alarm; this event was classified as a device failure due to incorrect wiring. Double-gloving offered satisfactory protection against skin contamination during microsurgery but not during orthopedic surgery. The data presented here indicate that electronic monitoring of the surgical barrier enables prompt detection of barrier failure, especially at the level of the gloves, thereby limiting skin contamination with patients' body fluids during surgery.

Glove reinforcement: an alternative to double gloving

Gloves, worn by the surgical team to prevent transmission of infections from and to patients, are prone to tears and perforations. This study was done to determine the frequency and sites of unrecognized glove perforation during surgical procedures. The percentage of glove perforation was 14%. Of the punctures, 73% occurred in one of four contiguous locations on the glove. We recommend glove reinforcement at these locations to provide better protection, as well as to reduce the burden of double gloving.

[Electronic detection of breaks in the surgeon-patient barrier. Evaluation of protective clothing in visceral surgery]

STUDY AIM

Breakdown of the aseptic surgeon-patient barrier causing abnormal contact between skin and body fluids represents a risk for transmission of infectious disease. Such breakdowns are frequently not perceived by the surgical team over prolonged periods. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the protection afforded by double gloving and reinforced gowns in visceral surgery.

METHODS

An electronic device detected breakdowns of the surgeon-patient barrier in a series of 80 surgical procedures, randomly assigned to double or single gloves, and normal or reinforced gowns. Fluid contacts due to glove perforation, glove porosity or gown wetting were recorded during 151 individual participations covering 238 hours. Surgical procedures were called deep for incisions of more than 10 cm.

RESULTS

Deep surgical procedures carried a sevenfold-increased risk of barrier breakdown, compared with superficial ones. Skin contacts through wet gowns were not prevented by the use of double thickness materials, but double gloving reduced the number of perforation and porosity alarms twofold in both superficial and deep surgery.

CONCLUSION

Without electronic detection, 96% of barrier breakdowns would remain undetected by the surgical team and lead to prolonged contact with potentially contaminating-fluids. The use of double gloving provides a real protection against contamination risk.

Electronic evaluation of the value of double gloving

BACKGROUND

Breakdown of the surgeon-patient barrier represents a risk for transmission of infectious disease. Such breakdowns are frequently not recognized by the surgical team. The protection afforded by double gloving under normal operating conditions was evaluated.

METHODS

An electronic device detected breakdown of the surgeon-patient barrier in a series of 80 surgical procedures, randomly assigned to either double or single gloving. Fluid contact due to glove perforation, porosity or gown wetting was recorded during 151 individual surgeon episodes covering 238 operator-hours. Surgical procedures were called superficial for incisions of less than 10 cm.

RESULTS

Double gloving reduced the number of perforation and porosity alarms twofold in both superficial and deep surgical procedures. Deep procedures carried a sevenfold increased risk of barrier breakdown compared with superficial procedures, the risk being greatest for the principal operator.

CONCLUSION

Without electronic detection, a large majority of barrier breakdowns would remain undetected by the surgical team and lead to prolonged contact with potentially contaminating body fluids. The use of double gloving provides real protection against such contamination risks.

Surgical glove failures in clinical practice settings

Health care personnel often pay little attention to the barrier effectiveness of the surgical gloves they use in clinical settings. They may assume that all surgical gloves provide adequate protection against the transfer of bloodborne pathogens, chemicals, or mutagenic substances. Perioperative staff members frequently are unaware that their surgical gloves have failed until they find blood on their hands after operative procedures are completed. In this first article of a three-part series, the authors review current surgical glove testing standards, define surgical glove failure, and describe the reasons that surgical glove failure occurs in clinical practice settings.

Randomized trial of blunt-tipped versus cutting needles to reduce glove puncture during mass closure of the abdomen

Eighty-five consecutive patients were randomized to undergo mass closure of the abdomen with no. 1 polydioxanone mounted on either a blunt-tipped (n = 46) or cutting (n = 39) needle. Gloves were changed before closure and tested for perforation afterwards using standard air or water techniques. Fourteen pairs of gloves were punctured when using a cutting needle, and three pairs when a blunt-tipped needle was used. The majority of punctures were to the non-dominant glove. The surgeon was aware of the puncture in eight of the 14 instances involving a sharp needle and in one of the three involving a blunt-tipped needle. Blunt-tipped needles, while not eliminating the risk, significantly reduced the incidence of surgical glove puncture (P < 0.001, Fisher's exact test). The use of cutting needles for abdominal closure should be abandoned.