Glove perforation rate in open lung surgery

National Survey of Sharps Injuries Incidence Amongst Healthcare Workers in the United States

Purpose

Reporting sharps injuries is crucial for healthcare worker occupational safety. However, these incidents are often underreported, thus posing potentially dangerous working environments. Previous small and limited studies have quantified this underreporting in specific groups of healthcare workers. This study aims to expand on these studies by further quantifying sharps injury incidences through a national study, thus better understanding healthcare reporting behaviors and the reasons for underreporting.

Patients and Methods

This is a national, multi-center, cross-sectional study conducted via an online anonymous survey distributed through email among United States attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurses of all specialties (ie, surgery, medicine, pediatrics). Data analysis used descriptive statistics and regressive modeling with significance defined as p<0.05.

Results

Of over 3000 surveys emailed, 460 (15.3%) healthcare workers responded. The most vulnerable cohort to report sharps injuries were medical students (0.87 injuries per year ±0.69, n=92) and Postgraduate Year (PGY) 1 (0.67±0.81, n=71), PGY2 (0.86±-0.82, n=48), and PGY3 (0.92±0.8, n=45) resident physicians. Healthcare workers in surgical fields reported significantly higher likelihoods (odds ratio=4.61, p<0.001, 95% confidence interval 2.83-7.26) of sharps injuries. Medical students reported sharps injuries the least (40%) and nurses reported sharps injuries the most frequently (71%). The three most common reasons for not reporting sharps injuries included (1) healthcare workers perceiving low infection risk based on patient medical history, (2) fear of peer perception, and (3) belief of lack of reporting utility or that reporting is inconsequential.

Conclusion

Medical students and physicians early in training, especially those in surgical fields, are more vulnerable to sharps injuries, but are less likely to report, while nurses are the most likely to report. Dedicated sharps training, education to reduce stigma around injury, and implementing a simplified reporting process may help encourage reporting as well as consistency in reporting, leading to improved workplace safety.

Do surgeons use double gloves during surgery? Results of a survey

&lt;b&gt;Introduction:&lt;/b&gt; The perforation of gloves during surgical procedures is quite common. A cheap and quite effective method of reducing the risk of blood-borne infections is wearing two pairs of gloves. Unfortunately, some surgeons are reluctant to it, and they report decreased dexterity and sensation. The aim of the study was to evaluate surgeons' double-gloving practices to determine the factors related to compliance. &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Material and methods:&lt;/b&gt; An anonymous, 21-question survey in Polish was sent by post to 41 surgical departments. The questions concerned: demographic data, type of surgical gloves used, allergy to latex, number of surgeries performed, frequency of using double gloves and negative impressions from using them and finally, the frequency of needlestick injuries during surgical procedures. &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; We received 179 questionnaires back. More than 62% of the surgeons believe that double gloves provide better protection than a single pair, 24% do not believe in this, and 14% have no opinion. Only 0.6% of respondents always use double gloves during surgery, 19% double glove in at least 25% of cases and 68% do it occasionally. 13% of the surgeons declared that they had never worn double gloves. During high-risk procedures, 86% of respondents wear double gloves. About half of respondents (50.3%) report discomfort while wearing double gloves; 45% - decreased dexterity; about 30% complain of numbness and tingling; and 64% - decreased sensation. &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/b&gt; Due to the high number of surgical glove perforations and relatively high prevalence of needlestick injuries, it is necessary to use methods that reduce the risk of transmission of pathogens. The habit of using a double pair of gloves should be implemented especially among young surgeons starting to train in their specialities. Consequently, the period of initial discomfort will be combined with the acquisition of surgical skills, which will allow for gradual acclimatization.

Factors Influencing Surgeons' Double-Gloving Practice

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate the practice of double gloving among surgeons and to determine the factors that affect compliance with such practice at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH).

METHODS

A survey was conducted among surgeons in active training from all departments at KAUH through the use of a questionnaire from May through July 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 220 surgeons who worked at KAUH, 183 agreed to participate in the study for a response rate of 83.2%. Less than half of the respondents (44.3%) stated that they wear double gloves. The main reason for wearing them was "self-protection" (63%), whereas the main reason for not wearing them was that they "think it is required only for special cases" (62.7%). The association between wearing double gloves and the subspecialty was significant (p = 0.033), the highest rate being found among orthopedic surgeons. Among those who usually double glove 84% of needle-prick injuries occurred when they were not double gloved. Eighty percent of needle-prick injuries occurred while surgeons were wearing single gloves.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the respondents practice double gloving, the main reason being self-protection. The most common reason for not wearing them was that they are required only for special cases. There was notable association between wearing double gloves and orthopedic surgery. Most needle-prick injuries occurred while wearing single gloves. We believe increasing awareness of the benefits of double gloving might change the practice.

A cross-sectional study of surgical glove perforation during the posterior lumbar interbody spinal fusion surgery: Its frequency, location, and risk factors

Lumbar fusion surgery was known to pose a greater risk of surgical glove perforation. However, there has been no study on the glove perforation that can transmit the blood-borne disease to the patient and surgical staff members in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIFs).We performed a cross-sectional study to investigate the glove perforation during the PLIFs. The study included 37 consecutive patients (10 males and 27 females). All used gloves of surgical staff members, which included the surgeon, assistant surgeons, bone trimmer (who performed local bone trimming and interbody cage preparation), and scrub nurse were collected and were performed to the pinhole water infusion test. The characteristics (i.e., frequency and location of perforated glove) and relative risk of glove perforation were investigated for each participant. The independent risk factors influencing glove perforation were analyzed by multiple logistic regression analysis.The overall operative perforation rate which is a percentage of detected more than one glove perforated event in all cases was 51.4%. The overall glove perforation rate which is the percentage of perforated gloves in all gloves used for surgery was 3.8%. The relative risk of glove perforation by each participant was 2.38 in the surgeon (P = .002), 1.36 in the bone trimmer (P = .04), 1.36 in the scrub nurse (P = .04), and 1.19 in assistant surgeons (P = .13). And, the volume of trimmed local bone was analyzed as an independent risk factor for glove perforation (ORs = 1.310, P = .02).The overall operative perforation rate in PLIFs is higher than 50%. The surgeon, scrub nurse and bone trimmer were observed as a significant risk factor for glove perforation. And, the volume of trimmed local bone was analyzed as independent risk factor. Since the preparation of the interbody cage is essential for successful lumbar fusion surgery, the bone trimmer must pay attention to the glove perforation during this procedure.

Incidence of Glove Perforation During Hand Surgical Procedures

PURPOSE

To determine the rate of glove perforation during hand surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively examined the rate of glove perforations among 10 fellowship-trained hand surgeons at our institution during a 6 week period. Gloves were tested for perforation using a water-fill technique at the conclusion of each surgical procedure. Surgeons recorded the presence of any glove perforations.

RESULTS

Eleven perforations were identified in 10 gloves among 600 surgical procedures during the study period. The perforation rate per case was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.78% to 2.8%). Forty percent of perforations (n = 4) occurred during fracture surgery. Other holes occurred during isolated carpal tunnel release (n = 3) or combined carpal tunnel and trigger finger release (n = 3). The perforation was noticed intraoperatively in only 2 gloves. The difference in perforation rate between single- and double-gloved procedures was not significant. There were no perforations in the inner glove of surgeons who double gloved. A total of 73% of holes (8 of 11) occurred on surgeons' index finger; 75% of these were on the dominant hand. The dominant thumb, non-dominant ring and nondominant little fingers each had a single perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of glove perforation during hand surgery is low. Holes can occur even during soft tissue procedures of short duration. The dominant index finger appears to be at greatest risk for perforation. When they do occur, most often holes are not noticed by the operating surgeon. The baseline glove perforation rate is unknown.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A high level of vigilance is required to maintain sterile technique.

The Effects of Double Gloving on Microsurgical Skills

Objective

To determine whether double gloving would negatively affect participants’ ability to perform a simulated microsurgical task.

Study Design

Randomized single-blinded controlled crossover trial.

Setting

Temporal bone laboratory of an academic otolaryngology department.

Subjects and Methods

This study involved the simulated insertion of a stapes prosthesis into a model of the ossicular chain under microscopy. Forty-one participants were recruited from our medical and dental school and randomized into 2 groups. All groups began by performing the task without gloves, acting as their own control arm. The first group (A) then performed the task with a single pair of gloves while the second group (B) next performed the task with 2 pairs of gloves. The groups then switched gloving methods. The total time taken to perform the task was recorded for each participant and the results subjected to a series of statistical measures.

Results

This study found a statistically significant difference in the average time taken to complete the task between the “no-glove” arm of the study and both experimental groups but no difference between the 2 experimental groups. Likewise, no significant difference was found between the 2 experimental groups when comparing the rate at which they improved at performing the task.

Conclusion

These data suggest that wearing 2 pairs of surgical gloves does not negatively affect the speed at which a microsurgical procedure may be performed, lending support to the practice of double gloving, even in the setting of microsurgical fine motor tasks.

Infection prevention in breast implant surgery - A review of the surgical evidence, guidelines and a checklist

INTRODUCTION

As a result of increasing use of implant-based breast reconstruction, complications such as infection are being encountered more frequently. Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) cause morbidity for the patient, can lead to capsular contracture or implant loss and are costly to healthcare systems. National Guidelines suggesting methods to reduce SSI related complications have been produced, but are limited in the scope of interventions covered and underlying evidence presented.

METHODS

We performed a literature review encompassing a wide variety of possible SSI prevention strategies. We aimed to present summaries of the available evidence and give pragmatic recommendations as to their validity to use as guidelines for infection prevention strategies for implant-based breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

A lack of high quality data relating to the benefit of SSI prevention strategies in implant-based breast reconstruction exists. Many papers relate to orthopaedic implant surgery, or clean surgery in general. Following review of the evidence, sufficient data exists to support use of perioperative antibiotics at implant-based breast reconstruction, with continuation for an extended period in "high risk" patients. Alcohol containing skin preparations should be used over aqueous solutions. Laminar air flow use is suggested. Theatre traffic should be kept to a minimum, as should duration of operative procedure. The implant pocket should be washed prior to implantation. Double gloving and conductive warming are also endorsed.

CONCLUSIONS

We have produced a perioperative "Theatre Implant Checklist" for SSI prevention in implant-based breast surgery, with a set of pragmatic up to date guidelines, which allows the reader to evaluate the evidence upon which our recommendations are based.

Perforation of Surgical Gloves during Lower Extremity Fracture Surgery and Hip Joint Replacement Surgery

Purpose

To assess the frequencies and sites of surgical glove perforations in lower extremity fracture surgery and hip joint replacement (HJR) surgery. Additionally, we also studied the usefulness of an indicator system glove.

Materials and Methods

We assessed surgical glove perforations in 30 cases of lower extremity fracture surgery and 18 cases of HJR surgery conducted by one right handed 1st operator from April 2013 to July 2013. We assessed frequencies and sites of perforation in 152 gloves; 95 used in lower extremity fracture surgery and 57 used in HJR surgery. We studied the perforation rates and sites according to participants and operation types. Using the Biogel indicator system glove, which is well known as a fast indicator of glove perforation, we were also able to assess the time difference between operative participant detection of perforation and inspector nurse detection while observing in the operative field.

Results

There were 18 of 30 cases in lower extremity fracture surgeries and 12 of 18 cases in HJR surgeries which had more than one surgical glove perforation event. Of all 152 gloves used, perforation occurred in 15 of 57 gloves (26.3%) in HJR surgery and 23 of 95 gloves (24.2%) in lower extremity fracture surgery. Perforation occurred more frequently in operators than assistant doctors or scrub nurses. The most frequent perforation site was the second digit of the left hand. On average, the time difference between operative participant notice of perforation and inspector nurse notice of perforation was 20.6 seconds.

Conclusion

The perforation of surgical gloves happened in approximately one out of every four persons. Importantly, we noted a 37.0% prevalence of glove perforation in 1st operators. Considering that glove perforation is a critical factor responsible for intra-operative infection, surgeons must be conscious of the risk of surgical glove perforation and use double gloving regularly. Furthermore, indicator double gloving is recommended for fast detection of outer glove perforation.

A randomized prospective study of glove perforation in orthopaedic surgery: is a thick glove more effective?

We compared perforation rates among operative staff who were randomly assigned either thick latex surgical gloves or conventional gloves for use in performing total knee arthroplasty. A total of 1120 gloves were assessed in 70 total knee arthroplasties. Additionally, the degree of tactile sensitivity provided by the gloves was compared using a two-point discrimination (TPD) test. Perforation occurred in 27 surgeries (38.5%) and in 48 gloves (4.29%). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the operator was a risk factor for perforation rate (Odds ratio 14.448, P < .0.01) and that the type of glove was not (P = .896). In the TPD test, tactile sensitivity was lower for a thick outer glove than the conventional double glove (P < .001 for each site). Not only did thick surgical gloves lower tactile sensitivity, they also offered no superior protective effect over conventional gloves.

Risk of surgical glove perforation in oral and maxillofacial surgery

Oral and maxillofacial surgery, which involves several sharp instruments and fixation materials, is consistently at a high risk for cross-contamination due to perforated gloves, but it is unclear how often such perforations occur. This study aimed to address this issue. The frequency of the perforation of surgical gloves (n=1436) in 150 oral and maxillofacial surgeries including orthognathic surgery (n=45) was assessed by the hydroinsufflation technique. Orthognathic surgery had the highest perforation rate in at least 1 glove in 1 operation (91.1%), followed by cleft lip and palate surgery (55.0%), excision of oral soft tumour (54.5%) and dental implantation (50.0%). The perforation rate in scrub nurses was 63.4%, followed by 44.4% in surgeons and first assistants, and 16.3% in second assistants. The odds ratio for the perforation rate in orthognathic surgery versus other surgeries was 16.0 (95% confidence interval: 5.3-48.0). The protection rate offered by double gloving in orthognathic surgery was 95.2%. These results suggest that, regardless of the surgical duration and blood loss in all fields of surgery, orthognathic surgery must be categorized in the highest risk group for glove perforation, following gynaecological and open lung surgery, due to the involvement of sharp objects.

Needlestick an sharps injuries among theatre care professionals

Health care professionals are exposed to blood and other body fluids in the course of their work: (Al-Benna et al 2008). The World Health Organisation (2003) estimates that 9% of the 35 million healthcare professionals worldwide will experience percutaneous exposure to bloodborne pathogens each year (WHO 2003). In the U.K. about 100,000 sharps injuries occur in NHS hospitals each year (Trim & Elliott 2003). This is 17% of all accidents involving NHS staff (NAO 2003). Four percent of NHS staff sustain from 1 to 6.2 sharps injuries each year. These injuries occur mainly in clinical areas such as wards and theatres, but also in non-clinical areas due to accidental handling of inappropriately discarded sharps (Trim & Elliott 2003, Waterson 2004). Percutaneous injuries involving hollowbore needles remain the most commonly reported occupational exposures in the healthcare setting (HPA 2010). Consequently, workers are at risk of infection with bloodborne viruses including human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus and bacterial infections (Al-Benna et al 2008).

Comparison of 4 different types of surgical gloves used for preventing blood contact

BACKGROUND

Needlestick injuries are always associated with a risk of infection, because these types of punctures may expose healthcare workers to a patient's blood and/or body fluids.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 4 different types of surgical gloves for preventing exposure to blood as a result of needlestick injury.

METHODS

For simulation of needlestick injury, a circular sample of pork skin was tightened onto a bracket, and a single finger from a medical glove was stretched over the sample. First, a powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating was used to test blood contact. Second, a glove with a patented puncture indication system was used to test blood contact with a double-gloved hand. Third, 2 powder-free latex medical gloves of the same size and hand were combined for double gloving, again to test blood contact. Finally, we tested a glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside. The punctures were carried out using diverse sharp surgical devices that were contaminated with (99)Tc-marked blood. The amount of blood contact was determined from the transmitted radioactivity.

RESULTS

For the powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating, a mean volume of 0.048 microL of blood (standard error of the mean [SEM], 0.077 microL) was transferred in punctures with an automated lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. For the glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside, the mean volume of blood transferred was 0.030 microL (SEM, 0.0056 microL) with a single glove and was 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) with 2 gloves. For the glove with the patented puncture indication system, a mean volume of 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) of blood was transferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Double gloving or the use of a glove with disinfectant can result in a decrease in the volume of blood transferred. Therefore, the use of either of these gloving systems could help to minimize the risk of bloodborne infections for medical staff.

Infection control guidelines for prevention of health care-associated transmission of hepatitis B and C viruses

Viral hepatitis was first identified as an occupational hazard for health care workers more than 60 years ago. For the past few decades, hepatitis B has been one of the most significant occupational infectious risks for health care providers. With the increasing prevalence of hepatitis C infections around the world, occupational transmission of this flavivirus from infected patients to their providers has also become a significant concern. Several factors influence the risk for occupational blood-borne hepatitis infection among health care providers, among them: the prevalence of infection among the population served, the infection status of the patients to whom workers are exposed (ie, the source patient's circulating viral burden), the types and frequencies of parenteral and mucosal exposures to blood and blood-containing body fluids, and whether the patient or provider has been immunized with the hepatitis B vaccine. This article reviews patient-to-provider, patient-to-patient, and provider-to-patient transmission of hepatitis B and C in the health care setting. Current prevention strategies, precautions, and guidelines are discussed.

Study of blood contact in simulated surgical needlestick injuries with single or double latex gloving

OBJECTIVE

Needlestick injuries are the most common injuries that occur among operation room personnel in the health care service. The risk of infection after a needlestick injury during surgery greatly depends on the quantity of pathogenic germs transferred at the point of injury. The aim of this study was to measure the quantity of blood transferred at the point of a percutaneous injury by using radioactively labeled blood.

DESIGN

This study was conducted to evaluate the risk of infection through blood contact by simulating surgical needlestick injuries ex vivo. The tests were conducted by puncturing single and double latex gloves with diverse sharp devices and objects that were contaminated with Technetium solution-labeled blood.

RESULTS

A mean volume of 0.064 microL of blood was transferred in punctures with the an automatic lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. When the double-gloving indicator technique was used, a mean volume of only 0.011 microL of blood was transferred (median, 0.007 microL); thus, by wearing 2 pairs of gloves, the transferred volume of blood was reduced by a factor of 5.8.

CONCLUSIONS

The results revealed that double gloving leads to a significant reduction in the quantity of blood transferred during needlestick injury.

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.

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.

Efficacy of double gloving with an intrinsic indicator system

BACKGROUND

Blood-borne infection is an ever-present fear for medical professionals, especially surgeons and operating room personnel. Safety is paramount, and the reliability and efficacy of surgical gloves are crucial, as gloves are the most important barriers protecting hospital personnel and patients. Unfortunately, glove perforation rates are as high as 78% in high-risk procedures. As well as being efficacious, surgical gloves must be comfortable and easy to don, and when holes are present, it is imperative they be detected expeditiously. The purpose of this double-blind randomized study was to evaluate the ability of participants to locate 30-micron laser holes in surgical gloves while performing simulated surgery and to evaluate the Biogel Indicator Glove System, which reveals punctures.

METHODS

Twenty glove configurations (eight single, twelve double) were tested, half of which had laser-created holes. Each of the 25 participants tested and evaluated 20 configurations randomly. Simulated surgery terminated when a hole was identified by the participant or at the end of two minutes, whichever occurred first. Participants also rated their perceptions of each glove's features on questionnaires, all of which were returned, with 95.8% being complete.

RESULTS

Participants found 84% and 56% of the holes in the two indicator systems, latex and synthetic, in an average of 22 seconds and 42 seconds, respectively. In the worst-performing latex and synthetic glove configurations, participants found only 8% and 12% of the holes at an average of 47 seconds and 67 seconds, respectively. Indicator gloves were highly rated for comfort and ease of use.

CONCLUSIONS

Double gloving with an indicator system provides the best protection and allows the timeliest identification of perforations. Participants failed to identify most of the holes in the non-indicator gloves.

Surgical gloves: perforation and protection

The risk of surgical glove perforation is affected by a number of factors including the type of surgery, length of operative procedure, hand dominance and role of the glove wearer. This article provides an overview of each of these factors and discusses protective gloving measures taken to reduce perforations based on the findings of the Cochrane review.

Strategies for preventing sharps injuries in the operating room

With the discovery of AIDS and HIV, the medical community began to widely recognize the dangers of serious illnesses spread-ing through contact with contaminated blood and body fluids. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and other groups have developed guidelines for the operating room to prevent the spread of infection from, for example, accidental needle sticks. Unfortunately, those guidelines are not always strictly followed. This article reviews studies that have examined precautionary practices, including such practices as double gloving, the use of blunt suture needles, and the use of neutral zones for passing sharps. The article also provides related sources for further information.

Unnoticed Glove Perforation During Thoracoscopic and Open Thoracic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgeons tend to underestimate the risk of transferring infection during thoracoscopic operations, although data on glove perforation in thoracoscopic operations have not been reported.

METHODS

Unnoticed perforations of the gloves worn by the same primary surgeon during thoracoscopic procedures and open thoracotomy were studied. Gloves with gross damage and those changed due to assumed damage were excluded. Gloves were tested by filling with water and squeezing to inflate each finger, which could detect a perforation by a 30-gauge needle.

RESULTS

Perforation was found in 25% after thoracoscopic operation, although this was significantly lower than 70% after open thoracotomy. Twelve percent of the gloves worn during thoracoscopic operation were perforated. The perforation rate was higher for gloves worn for more than 2 hours during thoracoscopic operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Glove perforation occurred without being noticed in 25% of thoracoscopic procedures, and in 12% of the gloves used during the procedure. Glove change within 2 hours is recommended.

Indirect latex glove contamination and its inhibitory effect on vinyl polysiloxane polymerization

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The inhibitory effect of indirect latex contamination on the polymerization of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material has been previously reported. However, the transfer of specific elements that cause inhibition has not been confirmed, nor has the removal of such contaminants been reported.

PURPOSE

This study examined the surfaces of materials commonly used in restorative procedures that were contaminated by indirect latex glove contact and then evaluated for inhibition of polymerization of VPS. The effect of selected cleansing procedures was then studied.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four experimental groups (n = 8) were prepared: (1) clean vinyl gloves (control), (2) clean gingival retraction cords (control), (3) contaminated vinyl gloves, and (4) contaminated gingival retraction cord. Microscopic evaluation of the appearance and the characterization of surface particulate contamination were performed for each. Three cleansing protocols were then evaluated for efficacy in cleaning vinyl glove surfaces contaminated by latex contact (n = 10): (1) brushing with water, (2) brushing with soap/rinsing with water, (3) cleansing with rubbing alcohol. The subsequent degree of VPS polymerization inhibition was evaluated subjectively. A chi-square test was used for data analysis (alpha=.05).

RESULTS

Particulate sulfur elements and sulfur-chloride compounds were present on the contaminated substrates. None of the 3 cleansing procedures eliminated polymerization inhibition (P =.33). Residual elemental sulfur remained on all tested surfaces.

CONCLUSION

Particulate sulfur and sulfur-chloride compounds were identified as the particulate contamination that resulted in polymerization inhibition of the tested VPS dental impression material. Removal of these contaminants from the tested vinyl gloves and gingival retraction cord was not possible with the 3 cleansing protocols tested in this study.

Glove perforation and contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty

We conducted a randomised, controlled trial to determine whether changing gloves at specified intervals can reduce the incidence of glove perforation and contamination in total hip arthroplasty. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. In the study group (25 patients), gloves were changed at 20-minute intervals or prior to cementation. In the control group (25 patients), gloves were changed prior to cementation. In addition, gloves were changed in both groups whenever there was a visible puncture. Only outer gloves were investigated.

Contamination was tested by impression of gloved fingers on blood agar and culture plates were subsequently incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The number of colonies and types of organisms were recorded. Glove perforation was assessed using the water test. The incidence of perforation and contamination was significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group. Changing gloves at regular intervals is an effective way to decrease the incidence of glove perforation and bacterial contamination during total hip arthroplasty.

Failure rates in nonlatex surgical gloves

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency of glove defects for nonlatex surgical gloves while surgeons performed routine surgery and to evaluate surgeons' satisfaction with nonlatex sterile gloves.

METHODS

Two brands of latex gloves and 6 brands of nonlatex gloves were tested. Gloves were collected at the end of each surgical procedure and tested for visual defects and barrier integrity using an automated calibrated water test machine consistent with FDA's recommended standards. A total of 6386 gloves used by 101 surgeons and 164 residents representing 15 surgical services were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Higher after-use defect rates occurred in nonlatex surgical gloves than in latex gloves. Higher times of use were related to higher defect rates for some surgical specialties, and both surgeons and residents were less satisfied with nonlatex surgical gloves.

CONCLUSION

Intact latex and nonlatex surgical gloves provide adequate barrier protection. Nonlatex surgical gloves have higher failure rates and lower user satisfaction than latex gloves do. Both nonlatex and latex gloves should be changed after 2 to 3 hours of use because the barrier of either type of glove becomes compromised with extended use.

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.

Double gloving: a risk reduction strategy

BACKGROUND

The use of sterile surgical gloves has become the international standard of care in the perioperative environment. Yet the potential for barrier failure exists, with the subsequent potential for the transfer of pathogens to both the patient and the surgical team. The practice of double gloving (wearing two pairs of sterile surgical gloves) is often considered a mechanism for managing the potential risk of exposure during surgery.

LITERATURE ON DOUBLE GLOVING

In the 2002 Cochrane review of double gloving, findings were summarized from 18 studies. The review, which covers a variety of surgical environments and addresses several double gloving options, indicates that double gloving significantly reduced perforations to the innermost glove. Other studies report a risk reduction of 70%-78% attributed to double gloving.

OVERCOMING PRACTITIONER OBJECTIONS

Practitioners, in voicing objections to double gloving, cite poor fit, loss of tactile sensitivity, and increased costs. An important issue is how the two gloves work together, especially when they are powder free. Several studies have reported good acceptance of double gloving without loss of tactile sensitivity, two-point discrimination, or loss of dexterity. Although double gloving increases the glove cost per practitioner, the reduction of bloodborne pathogen exposure and possible seroconversion of practitioners represents a significant savings. Strategies that may help to facilitate the process include sharing the data on double gloving to build justification for the implementation, enlisting the support of the champions of the change at hand, and providing a glove-fitting station.

SUMMARY

The stresses placed on a surgical glove today--the length of cases, heavy and/or sharp instrumentation, and chemicals used in the surgical field--make it imperative that barrier protection be ensured.

Biaxial flex-fatigue and viral penetration of natural rubber latex gloves before and after artificial aging

Barrier integrity of unaged and oven-aged (at 70 degrees C) natural rubber latex examination gloves was assessed with a biaxial flex-fatigue method where failure was detected electronically, and by live viral penetration testing performed according to a modified version of ASTM F1671-97a. When no change in barrier properties was detected during flex testing, no virus passage was found after viral challenge. Conversely, when a change in the barrier properties was indicated by the electrical signal, virus passage was found in 74% of the specimens. Flex-fatigue results indicated that unaged test specimens from powdered (PD) and powder-free (PF) nonchlorinated gloves had significantly longer fatigue lives than powder-free chlorinated (CL) gloves from the same manufacturer. Biaxial flexing of oven-aged glove specimens showed a marginal increase in fatigue life for the PF gloves, but no increase for the PD gloves. The fatigue life of the CL gloves was observed to increase significantly after oven aging. However, this appears to be due to a design feature of the test apparatus, wherein peak volume displacement of the worked specimen is held constant. An aging-induced change in the viscoelastic properties of the CL gloves-permanent deformation of the specimens early in the fatigue test-relieves the stress magnitude applied as the test progresses. Thus, permanent deformation acts as a confounding factor in measuring durability of latex gloves by fixed displacement flex-fatigue.

Abrasion resistance of medical glove materials

Due to the increasing demand for nonlatex medical gloves in the health-care community, there is a need to assess the durability of alternative glove materials. This study examines durability characteristics of various glove materials by abrasion resistance testing. Natural rubber latex (latex), polyvinyl chloride (vinyl), acrylonitrile butadiene (nitrile), polychloroprene (neoprene), and a styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) were tested. All test specimens, with the exception of the vinyl, were obtained from surgical gloves. Unaged out-of-the-box specimens as well as those subjected to various degrees of artificial aging were included in the study. After the abrasion sequence, the barrier integrity of the material was assessed through the use of a static leak test. Other traditional tests performed on these materials were viral penetration to validate the abrasion data and tear testing for comparative purposes. The results indicate that specific glove-material performance is dependent upon the particular test under consideration. Most notably, abrasion, even in controlled nonsevere conditions, may compromise to varying degrees the barrier integrity of latex, vinyl, SEBS, nitrile, and neoprene glove materials. However, as evidenced by the results of testing three brands of neoprene gloves, the abrasion resistance of any one glove material may be significantly affected by variations in production processes.

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.

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.

How often does glove perforation occur in surgery? Comparison between single gloves and a double-gloving system

BACKGROUND

In surgery, intact gloves protect the surgeon from bloodborne pathogens and the surgical wound from microorganisms on the skin of the surgeon. However, glove perforation is very common, and puncture rates as high as 61% are published in the literature. One objective of this study was to compare puncture rates between a unique double-gloving puncture indication system and single-use gloves, and another was to determine the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during surgery.

METHODS

The study material comprised all gloves used in surgical operations at our hospital for a period of 2 months. The analysis was made by the glove type in a prospective and randomized manner. Gloves were tested immediately after the surgical procedure using the approved standardized water-leak method for 2 minutes to detect any holes. The gloves used in this study were either a double-gloving puncture indication system or the standard glove used at our hospital.

RESULTS

In 885 operations altogether, 2,462 gloves were tested; 1,020 single gloves, 1,148 double-glove systems, and 294 combination gloves were studied. The overall perforation rate was 192 out of 2,462 gloves (7.80%), and 162 out of 885 operations (18.3%). The detection of perforation during surgery was 28 out of 76 (36.84%) with single gloves, 77 out of 89 with the double-gloving system (86.52%), and 9 out of 27 with combination gloves (33.33%; P <0.001). The inner glove of the double-gloving system was punctured in 6 out of 88 outer glove perforations (6.82%).

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the critical importance of safety at work by having a sterile barrier between surgeon and patient, it is very important to use a double-gloving puncture indication system, at least in operations where there is a high risk of glove perforation.