A comparison of post-operative complications following wisdom tooth surgery performed with sterile or clean gloves

Risk of wound infection with use of sterile versus clean gloves in wound repair at the Emergency Department: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Sterile gloves are widely used during wound repair procedures in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. It is unclear whether sterile gloves protect against postoperative wound infections. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if sterile gloves offer significant protection against wound infections compared to clean gloves for wound repair in the ED.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library and Web Of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSIs) from their dates of inception to January 2023. RCTs or NRSIs comparing sterile (control) vs. clean/no (intervention) glove use for wound repair procedures in the ED and reporting postoperative wound infections were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk-of-bias of each report on a standardised form. Wound infection incidence was pooled using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

7 studies were included in the review, with 6 included in the meta-analysis. Of 3227 patients, 115/1608 (7.2%) patients in the intervention group and 135/1619 (8.3%) patients in the control group had postoperative wound infections. Overall RR was 0.86 (95% CI,0.67-1.10, I2=3.6%), and of high evidence certainty (GRADE). Absence of a protective effect was invariant in sensitivity analyses, leave-one-out analysis and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of additional protection against wound infections with the use of sterile gloves for wound repair in the ED compared to clean gloves was found. However, the review was limited by nonreporting of antibiotic history and time between wound repair and follow-up amongst included studies. Considering the ergonomics, potential cost-savings and environmental impact, clean gloves are a viable alternative to sterile gloves, without compromising wound infection risk in this setting.

Application of Field Sterility to Safely Reduce Cost and Waste in Cleft Surgery

BACKGROUND

Healthcare spending in the United States remains a major concern, requiring reforms to control spending and curtail costs. Medical supply is one of the largest expenses for hospitals and strategies should be utilized to reduce nonbeneficial service delivery, which increases cost without concomitant increase in value. Introduction of field sterility is one of the potential strategies that has been applied in several surgical disciplines to improve cost-efficiency by reducing overuse of resources and decreasing enormous medical waste. Of course, this must be applied without a diminution in safety.

METHODS

The PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 1980 to 2022 were used to review literature. Key words included "cleft surgery and field sterility," "sterile gloves and oral surgery," "oral surgery and field sterility," "sterile techniques and cleft palate surgery," "sterile versus nonsterile gloves," "sterile and non-sterile gloves and minor surgery," "skin laceration repair and sterile techniques," "sterile gloves and wound suture," "surgical site infection and field sterility," "operating room versus clinical setting," "operating rooms economics and hand surgery," and "main operating room versus ambulatory."

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 827 articles. Following evaluation of titles, abstracts, and manuscript contents, 23 articles were ultimately included, of which 10 discussed field sterility and cost-efficiency for cutaneous procedures, 9 hand surgery, and 4 oral surgery. There was no study evaluating field sterility application in cleft surgery. In the reviewed studies, no statistical significance was observed in surgical site infection (SSI) with substantial cost savings and medical waste reduction when hand procedures were performed in ambulatory settings with field sterility compared to the main operating room (OR). Furthermore, no difference was observed for SSI in wound closure, excision of skin lesions, or Mohs micrographic surgery when nonsterile gloves were used.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of infection following most cleft-related procedures remains low. As such, the application of field sterility may be ideal for this setting. The cost and waste associated with standard operating protocols are not warranted for many cleft procedures.

Comparison of Postoperative Infection Rates After Office-based Oculoplastic Procedures Using Sterile and Clean Gloves

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative infection (PI) rates using sterile and clean-boxed gloves in office-based oculoplastic procedures.

METHODS

Prospective, comparative study of patients undergoing oculoplastic procedures by a single surgeon (RS) in an office-based procedure room between October 2018 and September 2020. Participants included were 18 years or older. Excluded were patients on oral antibiotics within 2 weeks before the procedure, had a follow-up period of less than 1 week, had a contaminated wound, had complex reconstructions, or had multiple simultaneous procedures performed. Oculoplastic procedures were performed using either sterile or clean-boxed gloves. The main outcome measure was the frequency of postoperative infection.

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred twenty-nine patients, 1,815 (58%) of whom were women, with a mean age of 60 (18-102) years were included. One thousand five hundred seventy procedures were performed with sterile gloves, while 1,559 were performed with clean-boxed gloves. The patients in the 2 groups were similar in age, gender, and number of high-risk individuals. One patient in the sterile glove group who underwent upper blepharoplasty (0.064%) and one patient (0.064%) in the clean-boxed glove group who had an external levator advancement blepharoptosis repair developed PI. Neither patient had risk factors for infection, and both infections resolved after 1 week of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

In minimally complex in-office oculoplastic procedures, using sterile versus clean-boxed gloves resulted in similar low infection rates in this large cohort. The healthcare benefits may not outweigh the costs of using sterile gloves universally for office-based oculoplastic procedures.

Non-sterile gloves and dressing versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds in the emergency department: a non-inferiority multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with traumatic wounds frequently present to the ED. Literature on whether to treat these wounds sterile or non-sterile is sparse. Non-sterile treatment has the advantage of saving resources and costs, and could be of value in health settings where sterile materials are not readily available. Our objective was to compare the rate of wound infection after suturing traumatic lacerations with non-sterile gloves and dressings versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes in the ED. We hypothesised that non-sterile gloves and dressings would be non-inferior to sterile gloves, dressings and drapes. The non-inferiority margin was set at 2%.

METHODS

A multicentre single-blinded randomised controlled trial testing for non-inferiority of non-sterile gloves and dressings versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds was performed in 3 EDs in The Netherlands. Adults with uncomplicated wounds were included from July 2012 to December 2016. At the time of treatment, patient and wound characteristics and management were documented. The outcome was wound infection, which was identified during follow-up in the treating ED at 5-14 days postprocedure.

RESULTS

From 2468 eligible patients, 1480 were randomised in a sterile (n=747) or non-sterile (n=733) protocol. Baseline characteristics were similar in both study arms. The observed wound infection rate in the non-sterile group was 5.7% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.5%) vs 6.8% (95% CI 5.1% to 8.8%) in the sterile group. The mean difference of the wound infection rate of the two groups was -1.1% (95% CI -3.7% to 1.5%).

CONCLUSION

Although recruitment ceased prior to reaching our planned sample size, the findings suggest that there is unlikely to be a large difference between the non-sterile gloves, dressings and sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds in the ED.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL 34798.078.11, NTR3541.

The use of latex and non-latex gloves and dental equipment in UK and Irish dental hospitals

Aim To identify glove usage within UK and Ireland dental hospitals as well as the use of latex- and non-latex-containing dental equipment.Method A self-completed questionnaire was disseminated to 16 dental hospitals in the summer of 2017. The survey concerned their current use of latex and non-latex gloves and dental equipment. In addition, information was sought regarding any problems associated with non-latex and latex gloves.Results The questionnaire response rate was 13/16 (81%), of which 100% reported the use of non-latex examination gloves. The majority were using nitrile gloves. Twelve of the 13 dental hospitals would use examination gloves for simple extractions and 11 would use sterile gloves for minor oral surgery. In ten hospitals (77%), the sterile gloves were always non-latex, and again, the majority were nitrile. Latex-containing dental equipment including orthodontic bands, prophylactic polishing cups and dental dam was still being used within some dental hospitals, but to a much lesser extent than non-latex.Conclusion All dental hospitals were using latex-free examination gloves and were showing a move towards latex-free dental equipment. This usage is comparable to what has been seen in general dental practice and follows the trend towards latex-free dentistry.

Moving towards green anaesthesia: Are patient safety and environmentally friendly practices compatible? A focus on single-use devices

OBJECTIVE

Discuss if the use of disposable or reusable medical devices leads to a difference in terms of hospital-acquired infection or bacterial contamination. Determine which solution is less expensive and has less environmental impact in terms of carbon footprint, energy and water consumption and amount of waste.

METHODS

We carried out a narrative review. Articles published in English and French from January 2000 to April 2020 were identified from PubMed.

RESULTS

We retrieved 81 articles, including 12 randomised controlled trial, 21 literature reviews, 13 descriptive studies, 6 experimental studies, 9 life-cycle studies, 6 cohort studies, 2 meta-analysis, 4 case reports and 8 other studies. It appears that pathogen transmission in the anaesthesia work area is mainly due to the lack of hand hygiene among the anaesthesia team. The benefit of single-use devices on infectious risk is based on weak scientific arguments, while reusable devices have benefits in terms of costs, water consumption, energy consumption, waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

CONCLUSION

Disposable medical devices and attire in the operating theatre do not mitigate the infectious risk to the patients but have a greater environmental, financial and social impact than the reusable ones. This study is the first step towards recommendations for more environmental-friendly practices in the operating theatre.

Latex and synthetic rubber glove usage in UK general dental practice: changing trends

Objectives

To evaluate the current routine use of latex gloves and latex containing dental dam in UK general dental practice.

Methods

A questionnaire was disseminated to 89 general dental practitioners (GDPs) in June 2017. The survey concerned their current, routine use of latex gloves and latex-containing dental dam in general dental practice. In addition, monthly sales figures of gloves classified by material, were obtained from a UK dental supply company, for 2015–2017.

Results

The questionnaire response rate was 84 (94%), of whom 90% reported using non-latex (non-sterile examination) gloves for their routine dentistry. The majority were using nitrile gloves. All GDPs surveyed would use examination gloves for routine extractions, and 76% would use examination gloves for surgical extractions. The majority (75%) reported using non-latex dental dam. Sales of nitrile gloves were significantly higher than for latex gloves, with a continuing trend in the reduction in volume of sales of latex gloves.

Conclusion

The majority of GDP's now routinely use non-latex containing gloves and dental dam in their clinical dentistry. Nitrile gloves are predominantly used. Examination gloves are used for straightforward extractions, with many practitioners also using them for minor oral surgery. Sales of latex containing gloves are continuing to decrease.

Clinical significance

The routine use of latex-containing products in UK dental practice is low and likely to reduce further, with on-going benefit for the dental practitioner, latex allergic patients and prevalence of latex allergy in the general population.

Rigid infection prevention and control rules and religious discrimination: An uncomfortable juxtaposition?

Confusion and conflict arise when infection prevention and control (IPC) policies lead to allegations of religious discrimination. Many IPC standards are generic in construct, often failing to address wider issues and general policy applicable to all may have unequal impact on minority groups. Achieving uniformity by treating everyone the same is not necessarily the same as treating them equally. Some variation in approach might be acceptable, often desirable and sometimes inevitable but must not compromise staff safety or patient welfare. Concerns regarding clinical safety may overlook or override cultural and religious; without care, the outcome might change from cooperative to confrontational. Where, and how, to draw the line?

Evidence-based Sterility: The Evolving Role of Field Sterility in Skin and Minor Hand Surgery

Field sterility is commonly used for skin and minor hand surgery performed in the ambulatory setting. Surgical site infection (SSI) rates are similar for these same procedures when performed in the main operating room (OR). In this paper, we aim to look at both current evidence and common sense logic supporting the use of some of the techniques and apparel designed to prevent SSI. This is a literature review of the evidence behind the ability of gloves, masks, gowns, drapes, head covers, footwear, and ventilation systems to prevent SSIs. We used MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed and included literature from the inception of each database up to March 2019. We could not find substantial evidence to support the use of main OR sterility practices such as head covers, gowns, full patient draping, laminar airflow, and footwear to reduce SSIs in skin and minor hand surgery. Field sterility in ambulatory minor procedure rooms outside the main OR is appropriate for most skin and minor hand surgery procedures. SSIs in these procedures are easily treatable with minimal patient morbidity and do not justify the cost and waste associated with the use of main OR sterility.

Microbial contamination of procedure gloves after opening the container and during exposure in the environment

The objective of this study was to quantify the colony forming units (cfu) on latex procedure gloves in the beginning, middle, and end of the containers in real (professional) and controlled (researcher) gloving situations; evaluate the microbial load of the gloves, considering the time of exposure in the environment. This comparative prospective study was conducted at an intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. The microbiological data was collected from the gloves using digital-pressure. Microbiological evaluations were performed on 186 pairs of gloves: 93 in the control group and 93 in real gloving situations. In the control group, the average cfu was 4.7 against 6.2 in the real gloving situation. Hence, no statistically significant difference was found (p=.601). In addition, the cfu values of gloves in the beginning, middle and end of the containers also did not show any significant differences (p>.05). The most common strain was Staphylococcus spp. The time of exposure in the environment did not increase the cfu value of the latex gloves.