The mechanical and microbiological integrity of surgical gloves

Potential for Glove Risk Amplification via Direct Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Contamination

This review focuses on the potential direct physical, chemical, and microbiological contamination from disposable gloves when utilized in food environments, inclusive of the risks posed to food products as well as worker safety. Unrecognized problems endemic to glove manufacturing were magnified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to high demand, increased focus on PPE performance, availability, supply chain instability, and labor shortages. Multiple evidence-based reports of contamination, toxicity, illness, deaths, and related regulatory action linked to contaminated gloves in food and healthcare have highlighted problems indicative of systemic glove industry shortcomings. The glove manufacturing process was diagramed with sources and pathways of contamination identified, indicating weak points with documented occurrences detailed. Numerous unsafe ingredients can introduce chemical contaminants, potentially posing risks to food and to glove users. Microbial hazards present significant challenges to overall glove safety as contaminants appear to be introduced via polluted water sources or flawed glove manufacturing processes, resulting in increased risks within food and healthcare environments. Frank and opportunistic pathogens along with food spoilage organisms can be introduced to foods and wearers. When the sources and pathways of glove-borne contamination were explored, it was found that physical failures play a pivotal role in the release of sweat build-up, liquefaction of chemical residues, and incubation of microbial contaminants from hands and gloves. Thus, with glove physical integrity issues, including punctures in new, unused gloves that can develop into significant rips and tears, not only can direct physical food contamination occur but also chemical and microbiological contamination can find their way into food. Enhanced regulatory requirements for Acceptable Quality Limits of food-grade gloves, and the establishment of appropriate bioburden standards would enhance safety in food applications. Based on the information provided, together with a false sense of security associated with glove use, the unconditional belief in glove chemical and microbiological purity may be unfounded.

No Link Between Inadvertent Surgical Glove Contamination and Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Elective Neurosurgical Operations

INTRODUCTION

Controllable factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) have focused on reducing contamination of the surgical field with potential pathogens. The aim of this prospective study is to determine the incidence of glove contamination in a series of elective neurosurgical operations and determine the relationship of such glove contamination to subsequent SSI. We hypothesize that contamination of surgical gloves is associated with subsequent SSI.

METHODS

In this prospective quality improvement study, gloves of the surgical team were swabbed for standard culture just prior to wound closure of elective neurosurgical operations. Patient characteristics, surgical details, and occurrence of subsequent SSIs were collected retrospectively from the electronic medical records. Data were analyzed with χ2 with Fisher's exact test and Student's t test.

RESULTS

Surgical glove contamination occurred in 10 of 96 elective neurosurgical cases (10.4%). SSIs occurred in 6 cases (6.2%), but no SSI occurred in a case in which surgical glove contamination occurred (P = 1). SSI was associated with younger patient age (P = 0.0448), and surgical glove contamination was associated with less resident experience (P = 0.0354).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical glove contamination identified at the time of wound closure does not correlate with the development of subsequent SSI in elective neurosurgical operations.

What Role Does a Colored Under Glove Have in Detecting Glove Perforation in Foot and Ankle Procedures?

BACKGROUND

Many orthopaedic surgical teams practice double gloving or use colored indicator gloving techniques to reduce contamination intraoperatively. Although the likelihood of glove perforation can be affected by the procedure type and surgeon habits, as well as the surgeon's technique, these factors have not been considered to determine the glove perforation rate, and the role of a colored under glove during operations seems less investigated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What proportion of foot and ankle procedures result in perforation of outer gloves or under gloves? (2) What factors (such as the type or duration of operation) appear to be associated with the likelihood of glove perforation? (3) Does the use of a colored indicator under glove make it more likely that a surgeon would perceive the perforation of an outer glove intraoperatively?

METHODS

Between September 2020 and August 2021, the author performed 577 surgical foot or ankle procedures. Of those, patients who underwent subsequent operations under general or spinal anesthesia were considered as potentially eligible. Further, 16% (93) were excluded because the procedures were performed with the patient under local anesthesia, and another 1% (eight patients) were not analyzed (incomplete datasets for emergency operations performed at night). Finally, 82% (476 patients) were examined. To ensure statistical independence, gloves used in right-side operations in bilateral procedures and the most proximal surgery in unilateral procedures were included. Preoperatively, the surgeon was randomly assigned to use either a combination of two regular surgical gloves or a regular outer glove worn over a colored indicator under glove. Patient diagnosis, type of procedure, tourniquet time, and gloving type were recorded. There was no difference in potentially relevant confounding variables, such as the proportion of procedures performed on bone (78% [188 of 242] versus 83% [195 of 234]; p = 0.13), nor in tourniquet time (58 ± 30 minutes versus 62 ± 31 minutes; p = 0.45) between the regular glove and indicator glove groups. At the end of each procedure, the surgeon was asked whether he believed either the outer or under glove was perforated, and whether the use of a colored under glove increased the proportion of procedures in which the surgeon correctly ascertained that a perforation had occurred. To determine the proportion of gloves that were perforated, a standardized water-leak method was used, and the proportion of gloves with perforations based on several parameters of interest, including bone versus soft tissue operation and tourniquet time, was compared.

RESULTS

During 476 foot and ankle procedures, the overall glove perforation proportion was 19% (92 of 476 procedures). Under-glove perforation was observed in 4% (17 of 476 procedures) of the operations. There was no difference in glove perforation proportions between bone and soft tissue operations (76 of 383 versus 16 of 93; odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 1.52; p = 0.56). As tourniquet time (operation time) increased, the glove perforation proportion also increased (Exp[B] = 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03; p < 0.001). The use of indicator under gloves increased the surgeon's intraoperative detection of glove perforation (in 68% of procedures [32 of 47] versus 29% [13 of 45]; OR = 5.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 12.8; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgical glove perforation occurred in approximately one of five foot and ankle procedures. Based on the results of this study, I recommend using colored indicator under gloves and replacing the under glove when replacing the outer glove after perforation is seen in order to detect contamination early and reduce any intraoperative contamination related to glove injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Incidence and patterns of surgical glove perforations: experience from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Background

Surgical glove perforation is a common event. The operating staff is not aware of the perforation until the procedure is complete, sometimes in as high as 70% of the incidences. Data from Ethiopia indicates that the surgical workforce suffers from a very surgery related accidents, however there is paucity of data regarding surgical glove perforation.

The main objective is to describe the incidence and patterns of surgical glove perforation during surgical procedures and to compare the rates between emergency and elective surgeries at one of the main hospitals in Addis Ababa Ethiopia.

Methods

This is a prospective study, performed at the Minilik II referral hospital, Addis Ababa. All surgical gloves worn during all major surgical procedures (Emergency and Elective) from June 1-July 20, 2016 were collected and used for the study. Standardised visual and hydro insufflation techniques were used to test the gloves for perforations. Parameters recorded included type of procedure performed, number of perforations, localisation of perforation and the roles of the surgical team.

Results

A total of 2634 gloves were tested, 1588 from elective and 1026 from emergency procedures. The total rate of perforation in emergency procedures was 41.4%, while perforation in elective surgeries was 30.0%. A statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) was found in between emergency and elective surgeries.

There were a very high rate of perforations of gloves among first surgeons 40.6% and scrub nurses 38.8% during elective procedures and among first surgeons (60.14%), and second assistants (53.0%) during emergency surgeries.

Only 0.4% of inner gloves were perforated. The left hand, the left index finger and thumb were the most commonly perforated parts of the glove. Glove perforation rate was low among consultant surgeons than residents.

Conclusions

Our reported perforation rate is higher than most publications, and this shows that the surgical workforce in Ethiopia is under a clear and present threat. Measures such as double gloving seems to have effectively prevented cutaneous blood exposure and thus should become a routine for all surgical procedures. Manufacturing related defects and faults in glove quality may also be contributing factors.

Study of Glove Perforation during Hip Replacement Arthroplasty: Its Frequency, Location, and Timing

Objective. The aim of the study was to evaluate the location, timing, and frequency of glove perforation during hip replacement arthroplasty. Methods. Gloves worn by surgical team members in 19 primary hip replacement arthroplasties were assessed. The study was of a single gloving system. All the used gloves were collected at the end of the surgery and assessed visually and by using water inflation technique. Relevant data were collected at the time of surgery. Results. A total of one hundred and ninety-one surgical gloves were evaluated. Twenty-three glove perforations were noted in nineteen of the operations. Of these perforations 14 belonged to gloves worn by surgeon and first assistant (60.1%). Glove perforation in thumb, index finger, and palm was more common. More perforation occurred in the gloves worn in nondominant hand (52%) but was insignificant. Conclusion. Glove perforation in surgeries such as total hip arthroplasty is not uncommon. In this study of single gloving system glove perforation rate was 12.04%, whereas literature reports of glove perforation rate as low as 3.3% in elective orthopedic surgeries with double gloving system. As such emphasis should be given to wear double pair of gloves wherever this practice is uncommon.

A prospective analysis of glove perforation in primary and revision total hip and total knee arthroplasty

Literature in regard to glove perforation rates in revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is scarce. Our purpose was to determine the incidence of perforation in revision TJA. Gloves from all scrubbed personnel were tested based on the American Society for Testing and Materials. A total of 3863 gloves were collected from 58 primary and 36 revision arthroplasty cases. Surgeons had a 3.7% outer-glove perforation rate in primary TJA compared with 8.9% in revision TJA. When both gloves were perforated, the outer-glove perforation was recognized intraoperatively 100% of the time, and the inner-glove perforation was noted only 19% of the time. The surgeon has the highest rate of glove perforation. Outer-glove perforations should prompt careful inspection of the inner glove.

Surgical glove bacterial contamination and perforation during total hip arthroplasty implantation: when gloves should be changed

INTRODUCTION

Double gloving is recommended in orthopedic surgery, notably in total hip arthroplasties (THA) to prevent contamination of the surgical site.

HYPOTHESIS

Systematic glove changes during the key phases of hip prosthesis implantation reduce the frequency of occult perforations and bacterial loading of glove surfaces.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During 29 THA implantation procedures, we evaluated the bacterial contamination of the outer glove surface and its perforation rate. Contaminations were sought by placing the gloved fingertips on blood geloses (incubation, 48 h at 37°C), and perforations were sought using a water test (NF EN 455-1).

RESULTS

One intervention was excluded from the study because an initial contamination was detected, leaving 28 cases analyzed. Fifteen interventions (53.6%) presented contaminated geloses (26 contaminated glove changes for 3.38% of the gloves used). These contaminations were found on the gloves of all of the gloved personnel, with no distinction as to the right or left side. Thirty-eight percent of the contaminations occurred during joint reduction, whereas the other surgical stages grouped 15-26% of the contaminations (P<0.05). Twenty-nine bacteria were identified: 62% coagulase-negative staphylococci (16% of which were methicillin-resistant). Twenty-eight perforations were identified (3.5% of the gloves used), 67.8% of which were located on the operator and 64.3% on the dominant side. Eighty percent of the perforations occurred during the "surgical incision" and the "cup and stem implantation" stages (respectively, 5.0% and 5.5% of the gloves used during the surgical time) (P<0.05), without being associated with an increased risk of bacterial contamination. At the 12-month clinical follow-up, no infectious complications were found. On the gloves worn by the 20 surgical team members contaminated during these 28 surgical procedures, replacing contaminated gloves with new sterile gloves rendered all the bacteriological samples of the subsequent surgical stages negative in 16 cases (80%).

DISCUSSION

Increasing the number of outer glove renewals, notably during certain surgical stages at risk for contamination (prosthesis reduction) or perforation (surgical incision/femoral cementing) can reduce the risk of contamination and perforation. The bacteria isolated suggest a cutaneous origin. Regularly changing gloves has resulted in a sterile state in 80% of cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE AND TYPE OF STUDY: Level III prospective diagnostic study.

Determination of antiseptic efficacy of rubs on the forearm and consequences for surgical hand disinfection

While hands are acknowledged to be the most important source of pathogens from the skin of the surgical team, the transmission of pathogens from the forearms may also be relevant. Preoperative hand disinfection is recommended, but evidence-based standards for the forearms are lacking. As neither the European standard EN 12791 nor the American guidelines ASTM 1115 are applicable to the forearms, a new test method based on the European standard EN 12791 and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (DGHM) method for testing for the efficacy of skin antiseptics was developed to address the forearms. The antiseptic efficacy of a commercially available alcohol-based hand rub [76.7% (w/w) ethanol] was assessed on the upper arm after 15s, 2.5 min, and 30 min, and on the lower arm after 2.5 min, 30 min, and 3 h. On the upper arm, application of the product followed the DGHM standard procedure. On the forearm, the product was applied by the participants themselves with the right hand over the left forearm and vice versa as performed during preoperative hand disinfection. Sampling and culture were performed according to the DGHM method for skin antisepsis on the upper arm. Twenty-two volunteers were investigated. The efficacy of the antiseptic treatment on the forearm was not significantly lower than on the upper arm for any of the areas tested (P > 0.05). Reduction factors for all tested areas and times were quite similar, with confidence intervals ranging between 1.43 and 2.31 log₁₀. We suggest that an application time of 10s may be sufficient for the treatment of the forearm as part of preoperative hand disinfection, provided that an appropriate product is used.

Evaluation of an innovative antimicrobial surgical glove technology to reduce the risk of microbial passage following intraoperative perforation

BACKGROUND

Surgical gloves provide a protective barrier for patients and members of the surgical team. Although glove integrity is important in an era of blood-borne pathogens, little data exist on bacterial passage after glove perforation. This study evaluated the impact of antimicrobial surgical gloves in reducing microbial passage after glove puncture in a model of wound contamination.

METHODS

Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) and Brevundimonas diminuta (DSM 1639) were used to prepare a standardized suspension for testing bacterial passage after glove puncture in volunteers wearing single-layer gloves (group A), double-layer gloves (group B), or antimicrobial trilayer gloves (group C). After exposure periods of 5, 10, 30 and 45 minutes, the outer test gloves were removed and microbial passage was measured on the inner surface of the base gloves. Multiple repetitions (5 or 6) were performed at each sampling time.

RESULTS

Microbial passage at 5-, 10-, 30-, and 45-minute exposures were analyzed both separately and combined (5 and 10 minutes and 30 and 45 minutes). No difference was observed in microbial passage between group A and group B at the 10-, 30-, and 45-minute exposures for S aureus, whereas a significant reduction in microbial passage was observed in group C compared with group A (P ≤ .05 to < .005) at the 5-, 30-, and 45-minute exposures for both S aureus and B diminuta. When timed groups were combined (5 and 10 minutes and 30 and 45 minutes), a significant reduction (P ≤ .01 to ≤ .005) in microbial passage of S aureus and B diminuta was observed in group C compared with both group A and group B.

CONCLUSION

These findings represent the first evidence that microbial passage across surgical gloves can be reduced significantly using an innovative antimicrobial glove technology.

A surgical site infection cluster: the process and outcome of an investigation--the impact of an alcohol-based surgical antisepsis product and human behavior

BACKGROUND

The institution of a process used to successfully execute a perioperative antibiotic administration system is but 1 component of preventing postoperative infections. Continued surveillance of infections is an important part of the process of decreasing postoperative infections. We recently experienced an increase in the number of postoperative infections in our patients. Using standard infection control methods of outbreak investigation, we tracked multiple variables to search for a common cause. We describe herein the process by which Quality Improvement methodology was used to investigate and manage this surgical site infection (SSI) cluster.

METHODS

As part of routine surveillance for SSI, the infection control division seeks out evidence of postoperative infections. Patients were defined as having an SSI according to National Healthcare Safety Network SSI criteria. SSI data are reviewed monthly and aggregated on a quarterly basis. The SSI rate was above our usual level for 3 consecutive quarters of 2007. This increase in the infection rate led to an internal outbreak investigation, termed a "cluster investigation." This investigation comprised multiple concurrent methods including manual chart review of all cases; review of microbiological data; and inspection of operating rooms, instrument processing facilities, and storage areas.

RESULTS

During 3 quarters, a trend emerged in our general surgical population that demonstrated that 4 surgical types had a sustained increase in SSI. The institutional antibiotic protocol was appropriate for prevention of the majority of these SSIs. As part of the investigation, direct observation of hand hygiene and surgical hand antisepsis technique was undertaken. At this time, there were 2 types of surgical hand preparation being used, at the discretion of the clinician: either a "standard" scrub with an antimicrobial soap or the application of a chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol-based surgical hand antisepsis product. Observers noted improper use of this alcohol-based surgical hand antiseptic. This product was withdrawn from our operating rooms, and the SSI rate markedly decreased in the following 2 quarters.

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, we report the results of a quality improvement process that investigated a 3-quarter increase in our SSI rate. An investigation was undertaken, and it was thought that the (mis)use of an alcohol-based hand antiseptic product was associated with the increased infection rate. Removing this product, along with reemphasizing the importance of infection control, was associated with a decrease in the infection rate to a level at or below our historical rate.

Comparison of bacterial counts in glove juice of surgeons wearing smooth band rings versus those without rings

BACKGROUND

Removal of rings is recommended before surgeons aseptically prepare for surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to determine whether there is a difference between bacterial counts under surgical gloves of ring wearers compared with nonring wearers after proper aseptic hand preparation and 3 hours of wear.

METHODS

Twenty volunteer veterinary medical students were divided into 2 groups: One group wore a smooth ring band (without projections or mounted stones) on their ring finger, and the other group did not wear a ring. A modified glove juice method was used to obtain bacterial counts (colony-forming units/mL) inside surgically gloved hands prior to a proper aseptic hand preparation and 3 hours after hand preparation and wear. Each of the pre- and postsurgical glove juice samples were inoculated onto Letheen agar plates, which were incubated aerobically under atmospheric conditions for 48 hours at 35 degrees C. Gloves were tested for perforations using a water pressure test.

RESULTS

No differences, or significant change, in bacterial counts were found before or after surgery between all ring hands and nonring hands or between ring and nonring hands for ringed participants. No differences in bacterial counts were found within perforated versus nonperforated gloves.

CONCLUSION

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that surgeons wearing rings possess higher bacterial counts under their gloves during surgery.