Rate of Glove Perforation in Open Abdominal Surgery and the Associated Risk Factors

Influence of closed glove exchange on bacterial contamination of the hands of the surgical team

OBJECTIVE

To determine if closed glove exchange (CGE) increases hand contamination.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective experimental study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Surgical teams participating in 65 individual surgical procedures were included, resulting in 200 individual enrollments.

METHODS

At the completion of surgery, gloves were removed and hands were swabbed. The inside of the gown cuff was swabbed. Each participant regloved, using a closed gloving technique. The new gloves were removed, and hands were swabbed for culture a second time. Swabs underwent standard bacterial culture.

RESULTS

Before glove exchange, or baseline, contamination was found on 17/200 dominant hands and 13/200 nondominant hands. After performing CGE, contamination was found on 14/200 and 15/200 dominant and nondominant hands, respectively. No difference was detected between the number of CFUs cultured from a surgeon's hands before CGE and the number of CFUs cultured from a surgeon's hands post-CGE (one sided sign test, p = .61). Twelve (12) different bacterial species were identified, the most common were Staphylococcus spp. (97/154; 63%).

CONCLUSION

Closed glove exchange did not increase bacterial hand contamination over baseline levels.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

We found no evidence to support discontinuing CGE.

Comparison of Unnoticed Glove Perforations during Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Various studies have depicted the incidence of glove perforations during open (OS) and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the incidence of macroscopic and microscopic glove perforations during MIS and OS. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE) were systematically searched for comparative studies depicting the glove perforation rates during MIS and OS. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for both the outcomes (dichotomous) and the Mantel–Haenszel method was utilized for the estimation of pooled RR. The methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent investigators using the Downs and Black scale. The main outcomes of the study were the proportion of gloves with gross (macroscopic) perforations and the proportion of gloves with microscopic perforations. Results: Four comparative studies including a total of 1428 gloves (435 from the MIS group) were included. Pooling the data demonstrated no difference in the incidence of macroscopic glove perforations among the MIS and OS groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.54, p = 0.27). On the other hand, the incidence of microscopic perforations was significantly higher in the OS group versus the MIS group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95, p = 0.02). However, all the studies had a moderate risk of bias. Conclusions: When compared to OS, the macroscopic glove perforation rate during MIS showed no significant difference. The incidence of microscopic glove perforations was significantly higher during OS as compared to MIS. However, due to the moderate risk of bias of the available comparative studies, the level of evidence of these studies is limited.

Surgical glove perforation during laparoscopic colorectal procedures

Background

It has been reported that in conventional open surgery, approximately 10% of surgical gloves are perforated during surgery without being noticed. To protect both the patient and medical staff from harm, double gloving or changing gloves routinely at certain intervals during surgery is recommended. However, whether these protective measures are also necessary for laparoscopic colorectal surgery is unknown because the actual perforation rate during laparoscopic procedures is unclear.

Methods

Seventy-seven laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were evaluated, and a total of 616 surgical gloves used in the surgeries were collected for analysis. The presence of glove perforation was tested by the standard water-leak test method (EN455-1).

Results

Seven perforations were detected (1.1%). The duration of the laparoscopic procedure was not a statistically significant risk factor for glove perforation (p = 0.41). Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) were observed in 12 cases (15.6%), but there was no significant correlation between the presence of glove perforation and SSI (p = 0.92). According to the bacterial cultivation results, the majority of causative agents of SSI were enterobacteria, which belong to the major gut flora.

Conclusion

Although the perforation rate was considerably lower than that in open surgery, surgical glove perforation occurred during laparoscopic procedures. Double gloving in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is recommended not to prevent SSI but to protect medical workers from harmful infections after direct contact with the patient.

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

<b>Introduction:</b> 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. <br><b>Material and methods:</b> 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. <br><b>Results:</b> 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. <br><b>Conclusion:</b> 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.