Blood exposure in single versus double gloving during pelvic surgery

Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection

BACKGROUND

The invasive nature of surgery, with its increased exposure to blood, means that during surgery there is a high risk of transfer of pathogens. Pathogens can be transferred through contact between surgical patients and the surgical team, resulting in post-operative or blood borne infections in patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. This risk can be reduced by implementing protective barriers such as wearing surgical gloves. Wearing two pairs of surgical gloves, triple gloves, glove liners or cloth outer gloves, as opposed to one pair, is considered to provide an additional barrier and further reduce the risk of contamination.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine if additional glove protection reduces the number of surgical site or blood borne infections in patients or the surgical team. The secondary objective was to determine if additional glove protection reduces the number of perforations to the innermost pair of surgical gloves. The innermost gloves (next to skin) compared with the outermost gloves are considered to be the last barrier between the patient and the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (January 2006), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005). We also contacted glove manufacturing companies and professional organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving: single gloving, double gloving, triple gloving, glove liners, knitted outer gloves, steel weave outer gloves and perforation indicator systems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Data was extracted by one author and cross checked for accuracy by the second author.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials were found which addressed the primary outcome, namely, surgical site infections in patients. Both trials reported no infections. Thirty one randomised controlled trials measuring glove perforations were identified and included in the review. Fourteen trials of double gloving (wearing two pairs of surgical latex gloves) were pooled and showed that there were significantly more perforations to the single glove than the innermost of the double gloves (OR 4.10, 95% CI 3.30 to 5.09). Eight trials of indicator gloves (coloured latex gloves worn underneath latex gloves to more rapidly alert the team to perforations) showed that significantly fewer perforations were detected with single gloves compared with indicator gloves (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16) or with standard double glove compared with indicator gloves (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17). Two trials of glove liners (a glove knitted with cloth or polymers worn between two pairs of latex gloves)(OR 26.36, 95% CI 7.91 to 87.82), three trials of knitted gloves (knitted glove worn on top of latex surgical gloves)(OR 5.76, 95% CI 3.25 to 10.20) and one trial of triple gloving (three pairs of latex surgical gloves)(OR 69.41, 95% CI 3.89 to 1239.18) all compared with standard double gloves, showed there were significantly more perforations to the innermost glove of a standard double glove in all comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no direct evidence that additional glove protection worn by the surgical team reduces surgical site infections in patients, however the review has insufficient power for this outcome. The addition of a second pair of surgical gloves significantly reduces perforations to innermost gloves. Triple gloving, knitted outer gloves and glove liners also significantly reduce perforations to the innermost glove. Perforation indicator systems results in significantly more innermost glove perforations being detected during surgery.

Randomized controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study presented here were to compare the rate of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods, and the time of operation and level of surgeon in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery.

METHOD

A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from the beginning of May to the end of December, 2002 at Ramathibodi Hospital. A comparison of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods was performed. Glove perforations were tested by filling each glove with water. Glove perforation rate, position of perforation, time of operation and surgeon level of experience were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty sets of double-gloving method and 150 sets of single-gloving method were evaluated. The glove perforation rates were 4.6 and 18% in double-inner gloves and single-gloves, respectively, with statistical difference (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between glove perforation rates in double-outer gloves (22.6%) and single-gloves (18%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 2% of all double-inner gloves. The frequency of glove perforation was classified by the surgeon's level of experience and time of operation was no difference in each level.

CONCLUSION

The double-gloving method significantly reduced the risk of exposure of the surgeon's hand to the patient's blood, when compared with the single-gloving method in episiotomy repair. There were no differences in the rate of glove perforations compared to the time of operation and level of surgeon.

A study of the incidence and recognition of surgical glove perforation during obstetric and gynecological procedures

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency of surgical glove perforation among obstetric and gynecological surgical procedures, and to evaluate surgeons' perceptions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in which nursing personnel examined the gloves used in obstetric and gynecological procedures, immediately after the surgery, in order to detect perforations.

RESULTS

Surgical glove perforation occurred in 20.8% of 817 obstetrics procedures and 24.4% of 131 gynecology procedures. The observed difference between groups was not statistically significant (p=0.35). Obstetricians perceived the occurrence of perforation in 30.6% of the events, and gynecologists in 37.5%. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.44).

Randomised controlled trial of glove perforation in single and double-gloving methods in gynaecologic surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of double-gloving in gynaecological surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective randomised controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving methods.

SETTING

Rajavithi Hospital between 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000.

SAMPLE

Eighty-eight (88) and 82 primary surgeons were selected at random to make up single- and double-gloving groups, respectively, while performing total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO).

METHODS

The gloves were tested by immersion in water.

RESULTS

The glove perforation rate was 6.09% and 22.73% in double-inner and single gloves, respectively, with this difference being statistically different (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the glove perforation rates in single gloves (22.73%) and in double-outer gloves (19.51%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 1.22% of total double-inner gloves.

CONCLUSIONS

The double-gloving methods significantly reduced the risk of surgeons' hands contacting blood, when compared with the single-gloving method, in TAH with/or without BSO.

Blood-borne pathogens and nosocomial infections

Guidelines to prevent the transmission of blood-borne infections have evolved rapidly since the recognition that "serum hepatitis" could be transmitted to health care personnel via percutaneous exposure to blood. The HIV epidemic focused renewed attention on the problem of protecting health care personnel, culminating in "standard precautions" for patient care, which emphasized the use of gloves for all contact with blood and body fluids. This focus on protection of the health care worker sometimes obscures the other important functions of gloves: protection of patients from microorganisms on the hands of providers and prevention of patient-to-patient transmission of nosocomial pathogens. The risk of infection after percutaneous exposure to the 3 major blood-borne viruses-hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and HIV-varies greatly. The risk for a nonimmune individual exposed to HBV may be >30% if the source is Hb(e)Ag-positive. The average infection rate for HCV is 1.8%. For HIV, the average risk is 0.3%, but is higher with deep injury, when there is visible blood on the device, when a needle has been in an artery or vein, or when the source patient is in the terminal phase of HIV. Prompt administration of anti-HIV therapy reduces risk by about 80%. Mucous membrane and cutaneous exposures carry less risk. Recent efforts to reduce needlestick injuries in hospitals have reduced the risk to health care providers. Surgeons and other health care professionals who are infected with HIV or HCV pose a very small risk to their patients, although a number of outbreaks have been traced to surgeons who are HBV carriers; most have been Hb(e)Ag-positive.

Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection

BACKGROUND

The invasive nature of surgery, with its increased exposure to blood, means that during surgery there is a high risk of transfer of pathogens. Pathogens can be transferred through contact between surgical patients and the surgical team, resulting in post-operative or blood borne infections in patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. This risk can be reduced by implementing protective barriers such as wearing surgical gloves. Wearing two pairs of surgical gloves, as opposed to one pair, is considered to provide an additional barrier and further reduce the risk of contamination.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine if double gloving (wearing two pairs of gloves), rather than single gloving, reduces the number of post-operative or blood borne infections in surgical patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. The secondary objective of this review was to determine if double gloving, rather than single gloving, reduces the number of perforations to the innermost pair of surgical gloves. The innermost gloves (next to skin) compared with the outermost gloves are considered to be the last barrier between the patient and the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Glove manufacturing companies and professional organisations were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving: single gloving, double gloving, glove liners or coloured puncture indicator systems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both reviewers independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Trials to be included were cross checked and authenticated by both reviewers. Data was extracted by one reviewer and cross checked for accuracy by the second reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials were found which addressed the primary outcome. A total of 18 randomised controlled trials which measured glove perforations were identified and included in the review. DOUBLE GLOVING (wearing two pairs of latex gloves). Nine trials compared single latex gloves versus double latex gloves. These found no difference in the number of perforations between the single latex gloves and the outermost pair of the double latex gloves, but the number of perforations to the double latex-innermost glove was significantly reduced when two pairs of latex gloves were worn. ORTHOPAEDIC GLOVES (thicker than standard latex gloves). One trial compared single latex orthopaedic gloves with double latex gloves. This showed there was no difference in the number of perforations to the innermost gloves when wearing double latex gloves compared with a single pair of latex orthopaedic gloves. INDICATOR GLOVES (coloured latex gloves worn underneath latex gloves). Three trials compared double latex gloves versus double latex indicator gloves. These trials showed similar numbers of perforations to both the innermost and the outermost gloves for both gloving groups. Perforations to the outermost gloves were detected more easily when double latex indicator gloves were worn. Wearing double latex indicator gloves did not increase the detection of perforations to the innermost gloves. GLOVE LINERS (an insert worn between two pairs of latex gloves). Two trials compared double latex gloves versus double latex gloves with liners. These trials showed a significant reduction in the number of perforations to the innermost glove when a glove liner was worn between two pairs of latex gloves. CLOTH GLOVES (cloth gloves worn on top of latex gloves). Two trials compared double latex gloves versus latex inner with cloth outer gloves. These trials showed that wearing a cloth outer glove significantly reduced the number of perforations to the innermost latex glove. STEEL WEAVE GLOVES (steel weave gloves worn on top of latex gloves). One trial compared double latex gloves versus latex inner with steel weave outer gloves. This trial showed no reduction in the number of perforations to the innermost glove when wearing a steel weave outer glove.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Wearing two pairs of latex gloves significantly reduces the number of perforations to the innermost glove. This evidence comes from trials undertaken in 'low risk' surgical specialties, that is specialties which did not include orthopaedic joint surgery. Wearing two pairs of latex gloves does not cause the glove wearer to sustain more perforations to their outermost glove. Wearing double latex indicator gloves enables the glove wearer to detect perforations to the outermost glove more easily than when wearing double latex gloves. However wearing a double latex indicator system will not assist with the detection of perforations to the innermost glove, nor reduce the number of perforations to either the outermost or the innermost glove. Wearing a glove liner between two pairs of latex gloves to undertake joint replacement surgery significantly reduces the number of perforations to the innermost glove compared with double latex gloves only. Wearing cloth outer gloves to undertake joint replacement surgery significantly reduces the number of perforations to the innermost glove compared with wearing double latex gloves. Wearing steel weave outer gloves to undertake joint replacement surgery does not reduce the number of perforations to innermost gloves compared with double latex gloves.

Quantifying and reducing the risk of bloodborne pathogen exposure

The risk of becoming infected with bloodborne pathogens (e.g., hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV) during surgery is real. The degree of risk for perioperative personnel is related to factors that include participating in large numbers of surgical procedures each year; the nature of perioperative work (e.g., use of different types of sharp instruments): exposure to large amounts of blood and body fluids; the prevalence of bloodborne pathogens in the surgical population; the variation in different organisms' ability to be transmitted; the existence of vaccines and the level of vaccination; the availability of postexposure treatment; and the consequences of acquiring the disease. Controlling risks to perioperative personnel can be accomplished by using the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's three methods of control--redesigning surgical equipment and procedures, changing work practices, and enhancing the personal protection equipment of perioperative personnel.

Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection: a prospective study of risk factors

OBJECT

Hydrocephalus is a common condition of childhood that usually requires insertion of a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt. Infection is one of the most devastating complications that may arise from the presence of CSF shunts. In this study, the authors prospectively analyzed perioperative risk factors for CSF shunt infection in a cohort of children.

METHODS

Between 1996 and 1999, 299 eligible patients underwent CSF shunt operations (insertions and revisions) that were observed by a research nurse at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Several perioperative variables were recorded. All cases were followed postoperatively for 6 months to note any development of CSF shunt infection. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the relationship between the variables and the development of shunt infection. Thirty-one patients (10.4%) experienced shunt infection. Three perioperative variables were significantly associated with an increased risk of shunt infection: 1) the presence of a postoperative CSF leak (hazard ratio [HR] 19.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.96-52.91); 2) patient prematurity (< 40 weeks' gestation at the time of shunt surgery: HR 4.72, 95% CI 1.71-13.06), and 3) the number of times the shunt system was inadvertently exposed to breached surgical gloves (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Three variables associated with an increased incidence of shunt infection have been identified. Changes in clinical practice should address these variables, as follows. 1) Great care should be taken intraoperatively to avoid a postoperative CSF leak. 2) Alternatives to placement of a CSF shunt in premature infants should be studied. 3) Surgeons should minimize manual contact with the shunt system and consider the use of double gloves.

Failure of a new double glove hole detection system in the Emergency Department

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a new double glove hole detection system in the Emergency Department. First, the frequency of holes in both gloves of the double glove hole detection system was determined using a watertight test method. Second, the frequency of glove puncture was determined first by searching for the optical color change that occurs with the ingress of fluid in the double glove hole detection system. These same gloves were then removed and also checked for holes by the watertight test method. After removal from the package, no holes were detected in the two gloves of the system using the watertight test method. In 50 consecutive patients, there was no color change in the inner glove indicating glove puncture. When these same gloves were then tested with the watertight test method, 14 of the 50 double glove hole detection systems failed; all 14 outer gloves were punctured, and three of the inner gloves had holes without demonstrable injury to the skin. This double glove hole detection system is not a reliable system to detect holes in relatively dry clinical settings because the ingress of fluid by capillary action between the gloves is necessary to cause a color change in the inner glove that signals the presence of a hole.

Biomechanical performance of latex and non-latex double-glove systems

The purpose of this study was to evaluate ten commercially available latex, powder-free surgical gloves and four commercially available non-latex, powder-free surgical gloves using standardized, reproducible biomechanical parameters that included glove thickness, puncture resistance, and glove donning force. For all gloves tested, with one exception (Neolontrade mark PF), puncture resistance increased for double-gloves as compared to single-gloves. In addition, single-glove thickness was not a reliable determinant of puncture resistance for either latex or non-latex gloves. For the latex gloves, the Ultrafree double and single-gloves exhibited the highest puncture resistance. The glove donning forces for the Biogeltrade mark M and Biogel Sensortrade mark single-gloves were the lowest. In contrast, the Biogel Revealtrade mark and Encoretrade mark Ultra-Thick exhibited the lowest double-glove donning forces. On the basis of these performance tests of latex gloves, the surgeon should consider the Biogel Reveal as well as the Ultrafree gloves for their latex double-glove system. For the non-latex gloves, the Pure Advantage Nitriletrade mark glove had the highest puncture resistance for one layer and two layers of glove material. The thin Pure Advantage Nitrile glove was the most resistant to glove puncture. The Pure Advantage Nitrile glove had low glove donning forces for both single-glove donning configurations and double-glove donning configurations. Consequently, we recommend the Pure Advantage Nitrile glove as the powder-free, non-latex, double-glove system.

Perforation in single- and double-gloving methods for cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

To compare glove perforation between the single- and double-gloving method in cesarean section.

METHOD

Three hundred primary surgeons selected at random to be two equal groups--single and double gloving in cesarean section--at Rajavithi Hospital from 1 November 1997 to 31 March 1998. The gloves were tested by immersing in water. The level of statistical significance was noted at P < 0.05.

RESULT

The prevalence of glove perforation was 10.67% and 2% in single- and double-inner glove, respectively, with significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The double-gloving method had a significant benefit in protecting the primary surgeons' hands from exposure to blood compared with the single-gloving method in cesarean section.

Evaluation of a preclinical, educational and skills-training program to improve students' use of blood and body fluid precautions: one-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Little is known about long-term improvements in medical students' knowledge, attitudes, and use of blood and body fluid precautions following preclinical training.

METHODS

We evaluated an educational and skills-training program emphasizing double gloving for high-risk surgical procedures. Baseline surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, and readiness to use specific precautions were completed by second-year (experimental) students before skills training and by third-year students (control) after their first clinical year. Follow-up surveys were completed 1 year later. Use of double gloves and protective eyewear during surgery clerkships was observed at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 149 students returning both surveys, the experimental group (n = 91) showed improvements in attitudes toward double gloving (P = 0.038) and use of double gloves during surgery at follow-up (relative risk = 1.95, 95% confidence interval = 1.06, 3.59). They expressed better attitudes toward (P = 0.003) and greater readiness to use (P = 0. 020) double gloves compared with controls at follow-up. They expressed better attitudes toward (P = 0.002) and greater readiness to use (P = 0.001) double gloves compared with controls when each had completed their first clinical year.

CONCLUSION

The intervention was associated with improved attitudes toward and use of double gloves during surgery. The experimental group also expressed better attitudes and readiness to use double gloves compared with controls at follow-up.

Comparison of perforation between single and double-gloving in perineorrhaphy after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial

A prospective randomized controlled trial of single and double-gloving methods in perineorrhaphy after vaginal delivery was performed between August 1, and September 30, 1996 at Rajavithi Hospital to compare glove perforation between both methods. We examined 1,316 individual gloves in the double-gloving method and 742 individual gloves in the single-gloving method. These gloves were tested by immersing in water. The glove perforation rate was 5.2% (107 of 2,058). There was significant reduction in the glove perforation rate of double-inner gloves (2.7%) compared with the single-gloving group (6.7%). The perforation rate of the double outer-gloves group was 5.9%. The perforation rate in the matched outer and inner perforation was found only in 0.3% (2 of 658). The double-gloving method had a significant benefit in protection of the surgeon's hand from the exposure to blood compared with the single-gloving method.

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.

Bloodborne pathogen transmission in health care workers. Risks and prevention strategies

Occupational transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus, and HIV has been documented. The risk for occupationally transmitted infection varies for these three viruses. Despite effective pre- and postexposure prophylaxis for HBV and recent recommendations for postexposure chemoprophylaxis after an HIV exposure, the best approach to prevent occupational bloodborne infection is the prevention of blood exposures. Epidemiologic data of percutaneous injuries and other blood contacts have provided the basis for prevention strategies. These strategies include the development of improved engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment.

Occupational Hazards of Operating Opportunities for Improvement

The emergence of hepatitis C virus compels us to refocus on protecting ourselves, our coworkers, and our families from potential illness, disability, or death. As bloodborne pathogens continue to evolve and mutate, the best option available is to prevent exposure. Surgeons have the opportunity to prevent the majority of exposures by utilizing currently available technology and knowledge. Surgeons should see, use, and evaluate a variety of safety-engineered devices, because their feedback can lead to improvements in technology. Education, communication, and access to safer technology will motivate surgeons to adopt safer behavior patterns. Provided with information and tools, we can change through self-motivation.

The use of a surgical assist device to reduce glove perforations in postdelivery vaginal repair: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare the effectiveness of a surgical assist device, SutureMate, to decrease glove perforations during postdelivery vaginal repair.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective randomized trial. After delivery surgeons who needed to perform vaginal repair were randomized to use the surgical assist device or to perform the repair in the usual fashion. After the repair, gloves were collected and the operator was asked to complete a standardized data form that was submitted with the gloves. The gloves were tested for perforations within 24 hours by the Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrosufflation technique. Comparisons were made with chi(2) statistics with p < 0.01 taken as being statistically significant with the use of a Bonferoni adjustment for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 476 glove sets were evaluated. The use of the surgical assist device significantly reduced the overall glove perforation rate from 28.3% in the control arm to 8.4% in the study arm (p = 0.0001). Rates of perforation varied with level of training and expertise but fell in all groups that used the device. Family physicians had the highest perforation rate in the control arm and benefited most from the device. A total of 76% of perforations were located in the thumb, index, and second fingers of the nondominant hand. Perforations were recognized in only 16% of the glove sets. The level of satisfaction with the device was mixed, but overall 50% of operators indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the device.

CONCLUSION

The rate of glove perforation in postdelivery vaginal repair is high. The surgical assist device significantly reduced the rate of glove perforations.

The effectiveness of cut-proof glove liners: cut and puncture resistance, dexterity, and sensibility

Five types of commercial glove liners (within double latex gloves) were compared to single and double latex gloves for cut and puncture resistance and for relative manual dexterity and degree of sensibility. An apparatus was constructed to test glove-pseudofinger constructs in either a cutting or puncture mode. Cutting forces, cutting speed, and type of blade (serrated or scalpel blade) were varied and the time to cut-through measured by an electrical conductivity circuit. Penetration forces were similarly determined with a scalpel blade and a suture needle using a spring scale loading apparatus. Dexterity was measured with an object placement task among a group of orthopedic surgeons. Sensibility was assessed with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, two-point discrimination, and vibrametry using standard techniques and rating scales. A subjective evaluation was performed at the end of testing. Time to cut-through for the liners ranged from 2 to 30 seconds for a rapid oscillating scalpel and 4 to 40 seconds for a rapid oscillating serrated knife under minimal loads. When a 1 kg load was added, times to cut-through ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 second. In most cases, the liners were superior to double latex. On average, 100% more force was required to penetrate the liners with a scalpel and 50% more force was required to penetrate the liners with a suture needle compared to double latex. Object placement task times were not significantly liners compared to double latex gloves. Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, two-point discrimination, and vibrametry showed no difference in sensibility among the various liners and double latex gloves. Subjects felt that the liners were minimally to moderately impairing. An acclimation period may be required for their effective use.

A prospective study of the efficacy of various gloving techniques in the application of Erich arch bars

PURPOSE

This is a prospective study of the efficacy of three different techniques of triple gloving during the application of Erich arch bars. Two different cut-resistant glove liners and three layers of latex gloves were compared with double gloving.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty patients underwent Erich arch bar placement from first molar bilaterally on both arches. Two surgeons per case were arbitrarily placed into one of four groups that included double latex gloving, triple gloving with kevlar or stainless steel glove liners, or triple layer latex gloving, based on the availability of glove liners. All gloves were collected postoperatively and tested for perforation using water insufflation.

RESULTS

One hundred eight of 120 outer gloves were perforated. There were 16 perforations in 11 inner gloves of the double latex glove group, but no perforations in the inner gloves of the triple latex glove group. There were two inner gloves with one perforation each in the stainless steel group and one glove with a perforation in the kevlar group. All techniques of triple gloving were found to be superior to double gloving. There was no difference between the techniques of triple gloving.

CONCLUSION

During certain high-risk procedures greater protection to the surgeon can be obtained by triple gloving. The use of cut-resistant glove liners or triple layer latex gloving is superior to double layer latex gloving.

A survey of glove preferences of general and orthopaedic surgeons in North West Thames Regional Health Authority

The glove preferences of all the consultant surgeons and consultant orthopaedic surgeons in North West Thames were surveyed by questionnaire. Responses were received from 59 of 78 general surgeons and 47 of 55 orthopaedic surgeons. Twenty-two percent of general surgeons never double gloved compared with 4% of orthopaedic surgeons (P < 0.01). Seventy-three percent of general surgeons double gloved for 'high risk' patients compared with 17% of orthopaedic surgeons (P < 0.001). When double gloving the majority of surgeons (67%) used their normal sized glove inside and half a size larger on the outside.

A new glove puncture detection system

A new glove detection system has been developed for early and accurate detection of a hole in the glove. It consists of an inner glove colored by a green dye and outer glove. When a breach in the outer glove occurs, the inner glove develops a dark patch around the needle puncture hole, a visible indicator for immediate glove change. Using a computerized needle penetration system, the immediate and maximal penetration forces as well as the work required for needle penetration of this new double glove was significantly greater than those encountered with either the inner or outer glove tested separately. In addition to hole detection, this double glove provides increased protection against needle penetration.

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

A new electronic device designed to detect glove holes, wet gowns and glove permeability was assessed during 50 general surgical operations. The cause of each alarm was recorded and the surgeon's awareness of any breach noted. Some 266 alarms were recorded of which 45 were ascribed to glove holes, 86 to wet gowns, 115 to glove porosity and 20 to other causes. Glove holes occurred in 29 of the 50 procedures; the surgeon was unaware of the hole in almost 70 per cent of cases. Holes were more common in laparotomy than in laparoscopic procedures (P = 0.006). In 20 per cent of instances surgeons did not respond immediately to the alarm (median delay 16 min). Six of eight surgeons who used the device indicated that they would do so regularly for major abdominal surgery. The electronic system accurately detects breaches in the surgeon-patient barrier. Its use should improve surgical discipline in acting to restore the barrier, protecting patient and surgeon alike.

Preoperative HIV testing: is it less expensive than universal precautions?

Universal precautions are officially recommended to prevent HIV transmission in health care settings but for elective surgery some advocate routine preoperative HIV testing. These strategies have not been tested in clinical trials but universal precautions are very expensive and not cost-effective. Thus, for elective surgery, routine testing might save resources by permitting selective use of additional barrier precautions. We performed an economic evaluation to compare both strategies, using a simple approach to determine if routine testing (RT) is less expensive than universal precautions (UP). Conservatively assuming equal effectiveness in preventing HIV transmission, we compared a minimized estimate for the average cost of RT with a maximized estimate for the average cost of UP per elective operation. The minimized estimate for RT (US$57) was greater than the maximized estimate for UP (US$36) per procedure. Results were stable or strengthened by sensitivity analysis. Routine HIV testing is not a valid economic alternative to UP for elective surgery. The simple methodology used in this study can be a preliminary strategy to review other strategies for preventing HIV transmission. This method is particularly useful when data are inadequate for a formal economic evaluation to determine the utility of collecting the detailed information necessary for a full comparison.

Use of a latex cover sheath for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of regular disinfection of the echoscope?

Better visualization of cardiac structures is an advantage of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Because of this, the transesophageal approach is an essential window in the assessment of various cardiovascular disorders. Quick consecutive access to this instrument should not be delayed by time-consuming cleansing procedures of the probe. In this study we used a sterile latex condom in routine TEE examinations as a barrier to contamination of the echoscope, observing practical use and the incidence of perforations. Defects were detected after the procedure by visual inspection and by an airtightness test. Maneuvers or situations associated with an increased likelihood of injury were checked for. In 180 studies a total of 168 patients were consecutively examined; insertion was feasible in all but one case (99.5%). We found 8 of 181 (4.4%) sheaths defective following the procedure. Visual inspection was less sensitive (only 3 of 8) for finding defects than an airtightness test (8 times). Teeth in situ and/or a bite guard are the only sharp edges during insertion and removing the probe; these seem to be the main risk factors in latex perforation. Application of a cover sheath for each examination saves approximately two-thirds of the time otherwise necessary for a cleansing bath, and easy handling of cover sheaths for TEE make them an alternative to regular disinfection in general. For reasons of safety we recommend checking each used cover sheath after examination for holes so as not to jeopardize the following patient by the possible spread of germs from contaminated probes. Not only visual inspection but also a second method, for example, an airtightness test, is mandatory.

Surgical glove punctures during cardiac operations

A new method of detecting occult glove punctures was devised to determine its frequency during cardiac operations. Glove puncture is of relevance to the transmission of infectious diseases and the potential contamination of implanted cardiac prostheses. A study was therefore carried out in 48 adult patients undergoing open heart operations in which gloves worn by surgeons and nurses were collected and evaluated at the end of each procedure. In 22 of these cases, gloves were changed at three different stages of the cardiac operation for the principal operators: stage I, skin incision to commencement of cardiopulmonary bypass; stage II, cardiopulmonary bypass to sternotomy closure; and stage III, sternotomy closure to skin closure. One hundred sixty-two gloves (31.5%) had one or more punctures out of a total of 514 gloves tested. Only 20 glove punctures were recognized either at the time or at the end of the operation. There were 185 occult glove punctures. The majority (60%) of punctures were on the nondominant hand, with 30% of perforations located in the nondominant index finger. Using the chi 2 test with two degrees of freedom, there is no significant difference between the glove perforation rates for the principal operators in stages I, II, and III. The most important finding from this study was that 61% of gloves worn by scrub nurses had one or more punctures compared with 23.6% of surgeons.

Frequency of glove perforations and subsequent blood contact in association with selected obstetric surgical procedures

OBJECTIVE

One purpose of this prospective investigation was to assess the frequency of glove perforations and subsequent blood contact associated with selected obstetric procedures. The second purpose was to assess the relative risk of perforation among different members of the surgical team and determine if time of day or urgency of the procedure affected the frequency of perforation.

STUDY DESIGN

Over a 3-month period, obstetric personnel were asked to double glove for all surgical procedures. After surgery, they placed their gloves in plastic bags and noted the type of procedure, time of day, and position on the surgical team. They also indicated whether they were aware of a glove tear and, if so, whether blood or fluid was on their hands. Gloves were tested for injury by two methods: by inflating them with air and subsequently immersing them in water to detect air bubbles and by directly filling them with water to observe for leaks.

RESULTS

A total of 540 glove sets (2160 individual gloves) were examined; 407 sets were from cesarean deliveries, 65 from puerperal tubal ligations, and 68 from vaginal deliveries. Sixty-seven of the sets (12.4%, 95% confidence interval 9.6% to 15.2%) had at least one hole; the total number of holes was 78. Sixty-six holes were in the outer glove only, and 7 were in the inner glove only. In five sets (0.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.5% to 1.3%) there were matching holes in the outer and inner gloves. In two of these cases (0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.7%) the surgeons noted blood on their hands at the conclusion of the procedure. The difference in frequency of injury in outer versus inner gloves was highly significant (p < 0.005). Forty-six of the 78 holes (59%) were on the thumb or first two fingers of the nondominant hand. Only 2 (3%) of the glove tears were recognized by the surgeon. There was no difference in frequency of glove tears when cesarean sections were classified as urgent versus nonurgent. There also was no difference in frequency of glove tears in procedures performed at night compared with those during the daytime. Surgical nurses had 36% of all glove injuries and were more likely than physicians or medical students to sustain perforations (p < 0.005). Primary surgeons and first assistants were more likely than second assistants to sustain glove injuries (p < 0.05). For primary surgeons and first assistants, level of training did not significantly affect the frequency of glove perforations.

CONCLUSIONS

Glove perforations occur in approximately 12% of obstetric surgical procedures. Surgical nurses are at greatest risk for perforation. Double gloving reduces the likelihood of penetrating injury to the inner glove and subsequent risk of blood contact.