An Enzyme-Mediated Assay to Quantify Inoculation Volume Delivered by Suture Needlestick Injury: Two Gloves Are Better Than One

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).

Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.We found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).We found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.There was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.There was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.

Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff

BACKGROUND

Surgeons and their assistants are especially at risk of exposure to blood due to glove perforations and needle stick injuries during operations. The use of blunt needles can reduce this risk because they don't penetrate skin easily but still perform sufficiently in other tissues.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of blunt needles compared to sharp needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among surgical staff.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (until May 2011), CENTRAL, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, PsycINFO, and LILACS (until September 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing needle stick injuries among surgical staff measured as glove perforations or self-reported needle stick injuries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias in trials and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed-effect model meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We located 10 RCTs involving 2961 participating surgeons performing an operation in which the use of blunt needles was compared to the use of sharp needles. Four studies focused on abdominal closure, two on caesarean section, two on vaginal repair and two on hip replacement. On average, a surgeon that used sharp needles sustained one glove perforation in three operations. The use of blunt needles reduced the risk of glove perforations with a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.54) compared to sharp needles. The use of blunt needles will thus prevent one glove perforation in every six operations.In four studies, the use of blunt needles reduced the number of self-reported needle stick injuries with a RR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.68). Because the force needed for the blunt needles is higher, their use was rated as more difficult but still acceptable in five out of six studies.The quality of the evidence was rated as high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that the use of blunt needles appreciably reduces the risk of exposure to blood and bodily fluids for surgeons and their assistants over a range of operations. It is unlikely that future research will change this conclusion.

Latex medical gloves: time for a reappraisal

Many hospitals have implemented policies to restrict or ban the use of devices made of natural rubber latex (NRL) in healthcare as precautionary measures against the perceived risk of NRL allergy. Changes in glove technology, progress in measuring the specific allergenic potential of gloves and a dramatic decrease in the prevalence of NRL allergies after interventions and education prompted us to revisit the basis for justifiable glove selection policies. The published Anglophone literature from 1990 to 2010 was reviewed for original articles and reviews dealing with the barrier and performance properties of NRL and synthetic gloves and the role of glove powder. The review shows that NRL medical gloves, when compared with synthetic gloves, tend to be stronger, more flexible and better accepted by clinicians. The introduction of powder-free gloves has been associated with reductions in protein content and associated allergies. Recently, new methods to quantify clinically relevant NRL allergens have enabled the identification of gloves with low allergenic potential. The use of low-protein, low-allergenic, powder-free gloves is associated with a significant decrease in the prevalence of type I allergic reactions to NRL among healthcare workers. Given the excellent barrier properties and operating characteristics, dramatically reduced incidences of allergic reactions, availability of specific tests for selection of low-allergen gloves, competitive costs and low environmental impact, the use of NRL gloves within the hospital environment warrants reappraisal.

The Comparison of Double Gloving to Single Gloving in the Theatre Environment

The role of surgical gloving is to minimise the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and to protect the surgical team from cross infection. However, different practitioners have different views as to when double gloving is appropriate, with many factors like speciality and procedure dictating their use. This review will look at best practice through the evidence available and provide recommendations for practice.

Image-directed fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the thyroid with safety-engineered devices

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to integrate safety-engineered devices into outpatient fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy of the thyroid in an interventional radiology practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The practice center is a tertiary referral center for image-directed FNA thyroid biopsies in difficult patients referred by the primary care physician, endocrinologist, or otolaryngologist. As a departmental quality of care and safety improvement program, we instituted integration of safety devices into our thyroid biopsy procedures and determined the effect on outcome (procedural pain, diagnostic biopsies, inadequate samples, complications, needlesticks to operator, and physician satisfaction) before institution of safety devices (54 patients) and after institution of safety device implementation (56 patients). Safety devices included a patient safety technology-the mechanical aspirating syringe (reciprocating procedure device), and a health care worker safety technology (antineedlestick safety needle).

RESULTS

FNA of thyroid could be readily performed with the safety devices. Safety-engineered devices resulted in a 49% reduction in procedural pain scores (P < 0.0001), a 56% reduction in significant pain (P < 0.002), a 21% increase in operator satisfaction (P < 0.0001), and a 5% increase in diagnostic specimens (P = 0.5). No needlesticks to health care workers or patient injuries occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety-engineered devices to improve both patient and health care worker safety can be successfully integrated into diagnostic FNA of the thyroid while maintaining outcomes and improving safety.

Glove perforation in hip and knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The transmission of blood-borne pathogens during surgery is a major concern. Surgical gloves are the primary barrier between the surgeon and the patient. Surgical procedures that need manual handling of bony surfaces or sharp instruments have the highest risk of glove perforations. The frequencies and the sites of surgical glove perforations in arthroplasty procedures were assessed.

METHODS

We assessed the surgical glove perforations in total hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. Double standard latex gloves were used. A total of 983 outer and 511 inner gloves were tested. The gloves of all the surgical team members were tested for perforations during the first and second hours of surgery.

RESULTS

There were 18.4% outer and 8.4% inner glove perforations. The most frequent site of perforation was the second digit of the nondominant hand (25.5%). We found that hip and knee arthroplasty had significantly more glove perforation risk for the surgeon in the first half of the operation rather than the second half, and 57.8% of the perforations were at the index finger and the thumb.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty procedures still have high glove perforation rates despite the use of double gloving with frequent changes. Extra augmentation of the gloves in selected areas of the hand, in addition to double gloving, may be safer and more cost-effective than double gloving alone.

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.

Occupational exposure of health care personnel to hepatitis B and hepatitis C: prevention and surveillance strategies

Ensuring the safety of personnel working in health care environments can be challenging and requires a multifaceted approach to target reductions in occupational exposures to blood-borne pathogens, such as hepatitis B or hepatitis C. This article reviews the epidemiology of occupational exposures to hepatitis B and hepatitis C in health care personnel in hospital settings. The nature and likelihood of risk to health care personnel are evaluated along with estimates of seroconversion risk. The review focuses on prevention programs and available surveillance programs to aid in monitoring and reducing occupational exposures to blood-borne pathogens.

Needlestick injuries during surgical procedures: a multidisciplinary online study

BACKGROUND

Needlestick injuries are common during surgical procedures. Following such an injury, local protocols should be followed to minimize the risk of infection.

AIMS

To identify who sustains such injuries, under what circumstances and what actions are taken to minimize the risk and in response to intraoperative needlestick injuries.

METHODS

A questionnaire was submitted via e-mail to all staff in a National Health Service trust who took part in operations. The results were checked against occupational health department (OHD) records.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-six of 255 appropriate responders completed the questionnaire (53%). Fifteen of 31 consultants (48%), 12/36 junior doctors (33%), 0/39 midwives (0%) and 8/30 theatre staff (27%) reported having had at least one intraoperative needlestick injury over the past year. Awareness of local protocols was significantly worse in the junior doctor group. Ninety-three percent of consultants, 67% of junior doctors and 13% of theatre staff did not comply with local protocols. The length of time it takes to do so (48%) and a perceived low infection risk of the patient (78%) were the commonest reasons for this. Hand dominance, role during surgery and double gloving were not significant risk factors; however, rare use of a no-touch technique was. Comparison with OHD records suggested that a maximum of 16% of intraoperative needlestick injuries were dealt with in accordance to local policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-compliance with needlestick injury protocols is commonest among senior surgical staff. A revision of the protocol to reduce the time it takes to complete it may improve compliance.