Anticipated detection of imminent surgeon-patient barrier breaches. A prospective randomized controlled trial using an indicator underglove system

Using double gloves in surgical procedures: a literature review

This article will present a critical review of the literature relating to the use of double gloves during surgery in order to identify best practice by using available resources and to improve health care. During surgery there is an increased risk of exposure to blood and, as a result, pathogens can be transferred through contact between the patient and surgical team. Health professionals working in the operating room are prone to frequent exposure to patients' blood and body fluids (Davanzo et al, 2008 ; Au et al, 2008 ; Myers et al, 2008). Several researchers have also demonstrated that the highest incidence of blood and body fluid exposure is in the operating room during surgical procedures (Ganczak et al, 2006 ; Myers et al, 2008 ; Naghavi and Sanati, 2009).

Suppression of surgeons' bacterial hand flora during surgical procedures with a new antimicrobial surgical glove

BACKGROUND

Perforations of surgical gloves are common and increase with the duration of glove wear. Skin flora, re-grown after pre-operative disinfection of the hands, may contaminate a surgical site. An antimicrobial surgical glove with chlorhexidine on its inner surface has been developed. We hypothesized that by suppressing the re-growth of skin flora during the complete course of a surgical procedure, antimicrobial gloves may reduce the risk of surgical site contamination in the event of an intra-operative glove breach.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, single-center trial, to measure any differences in the bacterial skin populations of surgeons' hands during surgical procedures done with antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial surgical gloves [ISRCTN71391952]. In this study, 25 pairs of gloves were retrieved from 14 surgeons who donned them randomly on their dominant or non-dominant hand. The number of bacteria retrieved from glove fluid was measured and expressed as colony forming units (CFU)/mL.

RESULTS

The median cfu/mL of antimicrobial gloves was 0.00 (LQ: 0.00 CFU/mL; UQ: 0.00 cfu/mL), with a mean log10 cfu/mL=0.02 (range: 0.00-0.30). The median CFU/mL of non-antimicrobial gloves was 54.00 (LQ: 3.00 cfu/mL; UQ: 100.00 cfu/mL) with a mean log10 CFU/mL=1.32 (range: 0.00-2.39). After a mean operating time of 112 min, the difference in the log10 CFU/mL was 1.30 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A new antimicrobial surgical glove suppressed surgeons' hand flora during operative procedures. In the event of a glove breach, the use of such a glove may have the potential to prevent bacterial contamination of a sterile surgical site, thereby decreasing the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and increasing patient safety. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm this concept.

Reducing needle stick injuries in healthcare occupations: an integrative review of the literature

Needlestick injuries frequently occur among healthcare workers, introducing high risk of bloodborne pathogen infection for surgeons, assistants, and nurses. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of both educational training and safeguard interventions to reduce needlestick injuries. Several databases were searched including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Sciencedirect. Studies were selected if the intervention contained a study group and a control group and were published between 2000 and 2010. Of the fourteen studies reviewed, nine evaluated a double-gloving method, one evaluated the effectiveness of blunt needle, and one evaluated a bloodborne pathogen educational training program. Ten studies reported an overall reduction in glove perforations for the intervention group. In conclusion, this review suggests that both safeguard interventions and educational training programs are effective in reducing the risk of having needlestick injuries. However, more studies using a combination of both safeguards and educational interventions in surgical and nonsurgical settings are needed.

Bacterial migration through punctured surgical gloves under real surgical conditions

Background

The aim of this study was to confirm recent results from a previous study focussing on the development of a method to measure the bacterial translocation through puncture holes in surgical gloves under real surgical conditions.

Methods

An established method was applied to detect bacterial migration from the operating site through the punctured glove. Biogel™ double-gloving surgical gloves were used during visceral surgeries over a 6-month period. A modified Gaschen-bag method was used to retrieve organisms from the inner glove, and thus-obtained bacteria were compared with micro-organisms detected by an intra-operative swab.

Results

In 20 consecutive procedures, 194 gloves (98 outer gloves, 96 inner gloves) were examined. The rate of micro-perforations of the outer surgical glove was 10% with a median wearing time of 100 minutes (range: 20-175 minutes). Perforations occurred in 81% on the non-dominant hand, with the index finger most frequently (25%) punctured. In six cases, bacterial migration could be demonstrated microbiologically. In 5% (5/98) of outer gloves and in 1% (1/96) of the inner gloves, bacterial migration through micro-perforations was observed. For gloves with detected micro-perforations (n = 10 outer layers), the calculated migration was 50% (n = 5). The minimum wearing time was 62 minutes, with a calculated median wearing time of 71 minutes.

Conclusions

This study confirms previous results that bacterial migration through unnoticed micro-perforations in surgical gloves does occur under real practical surgical conditions. Undetected perforation of surgical gloves occurs frequently. Bacterial migration from the patient through micro-perforations on the hand of surgeons was confirmed, limiting the protective barrier function of gloves if worn over longer periods.

Concentration of bacteria passing through puncture holes in surgical gloves

BACKGROUND

The reasons for gloving-up for surgery are to protect the surgical field from microorganisms on the surgeon's hands and protect the surgeon from the patient's microorganisms. This study measured the concentration of bacteria passing through glove punctures under surgical conditions.

METHODS

Double-layered surgical gloves were worn during visceral surgeries over a 4-month period. The study included 128 outer gloves and 122 inner gloves from 20 septic laparotomies. To measure bacterial passage though punctures, intraoperative swabs were made, yielding microorganisms that were compared with microorganisms retrieved from the inner glove layer using a modified Gaschen bag method.

RESULTS

Depending on the duration of glove wear, the microperforation rate of the outer layer averaged 15%. Approximately 82% of the perforations went unnoticed by the surgical team. Some 86% of perforations occurred in the nondominant hand, with the index finger being the most frequently punctured location (36%). Bacterial passage from the surgical site through punctures was detected in 4.7% of the investigated gloves.

CONCLUSION

Depending on the duration of wear, surgical gloves develop microperforations not immediately recognized by staff. During surgery, such perforations allow passage of bacteria from the surgical site through the punctures. Possible strategies for preventing passage of bacteria include strengthening of glove areas prone to punctures and strict glove changing every 90 minutes.

Incidence of microperforation for surgical gloves depends on duration of wear

BACKGROUND

The use of sterile gloves is part of general aseptic procedure, which aims to prevent surgical team members from transmitting infectious agents to patients during procedures performed in an operating room. In addition, surgical gloves also protect team members against patient-transmitted infectious agents. Adequate protection, however, requires that the glove material remain intact. The risk of perforations in surgical gloves is thought to correlate with the duration of wear, yet very few prospective studies have addressed this issue.

METHODS

We prospectively collected 898 consecutive pairs of used surgical gloves over a 9-month period in a single institution. After surgical team members wore the gloves during surgical procedures, the gloves were examined for microperforations using the watertight test described in European Norm 455, part 1. The gloves were analyzed as a pair; if 1 glove had a perforation, the pair was considered to be perforated. In addition, we evaluated the use of a hand cream that contained a suspension of cornstarch and ethanol to determine its potential influence on the rate of microperforation.

RESULTS

Wearing gloves for 90 minutes or less resulted in microperforations in 46 (15.4%) of 299 pairs of gloves, whereas wearing gloves for 91-150 minutes resulted in perforation of 54 (18.1%) of 299 pairs, and 71 of (23.7%) of 300 pairs were perforated when the duration of wear was longer than 150 minutes (P = .05). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in the rates of microperforation for surgeons (56 [23.0%] of 244 pairs of gloves perforated), first assistants (43 [19.0%] of 226 pairs perforated), and surgical nurses (53 [20.5%] of 259 pairs perforated). Of 171 microperforations, 114 (66.7%) were found on the left hand glove (ie, the glove on subjects' nondominant hand), predominantly on the left index finger (55 [32.3%]). The use of the hand cream had no influence on the rate of microperforation.

CONCLUSION

Because of the increase in the rate of microperforation over time, it is recommended that surgeons, first assistants, and surgical nurses directly assisting in the operating field change gloves after 90 minutes of surgery.