Double gloving and a glove perforation indication system during the dental treatment of HIV-positive patients: are they necessary?

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.

The HIV positive dentist in the United Kingdom--a legal perspective

In 1991, the United Kingdom Advisory Panel (UKAP) was set up under the aegis of the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS (EAGA) to consider individual cases of HIV infected healthcare workers. Policy and guidance relating to HIV infected healthcare workers is set out in a Department of Health report. Although more recently the EAGA has advised that an HIV positive dentist may under certain conditions provide clinical treatment for patients who are also HIV positive, the advice from UKAP relating to exposure-prone procedures means, in effect, that dentists who become HIV positive must cease contemporary clinical dentistry. The plight of dentists who become HIV positive and face this situation has been poignantly described as '...the dental practice equivalent of clearing your desk and being escorted off the premises.'

Surgical glove practice: the evidence

Surgical gloves are worn to protect both the patient and the surgical team from transferred infections. Wearing two pairs of gloves, perforation indicator systems, glove liners, knitted gloves and triple gloving are said to offer additional protection. This paper presents the main findings from a Cochrane systematic review of 30 trials examining surgical gloving practice.

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.

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.