Randomised controlled trial of glove perforation in single and double-gloving methods in gynaecologic surgery

Effectiveness of double-gloving method on prevention of surgical glove perforations and blood contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To determine the effectiveness of the double-gloving method on preventing surgical glove perforation and blood contamination compared with single gloving.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Seven electronic databases were searched including: Embase, CINAHL, OVID, Medline, Pubmed, Web of Science, and Foreign Medical Literature Retrieval Service in March 2020.

REVIEW METHOD

Our systematic review and meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Risk of bias of Cochrane Handbook (Version 5.1.0) was applied to evaluate the study quality. Revman 5.3 was used to calculate the effect size of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis with forest plot and funnel plot was performed to compare the rate of surgical glove perforation and to determine the published bias, respectively. This review has been registered with ID: CRD42020189694 on the web site of PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy of double gloving on reducing surgical glove perforation were identified and a total of 7090 gloves were tested. After analyzing the pooled data, we identified that the rate of surgical glove perforation in the double-gloving group was lower than that of single gloving with statistical significance (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89, p < .05). It was statistically significant that surgical glove perforation was lower in the double-inner gloves as well as matched outer-inner perforated gloves compared with that of single glove (OR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.07, p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Findings of this systematic review demonstrate that double gloving could reduce the rate of surgical-glove perforation. Meanwhile, the risk of being contaminated by a blood-borne pathogen during surgery could be reduced by wearing double gloves. We strongly suggest that surgical team members when operating should wear double gloves to protect themselves and reduce the risk of occupational blood exposure.

IMPACT

The necessity of double gloving for preventing blood contamination was demonstrated. The rate of surgical glove perforation is statistically significant in double-gloving group compared to single gloving. Double gloving could reduce the risk of being contaminated during surgery by blood-borne pathogen. Evidence is provided for surgical team and decision makers that double gloving could reduce occupational exposure.

Reducing abdominal hysterectomy surgical site infections: A multidisciplinary quality initiative

BACKGROUND

To investigate abdominal hysterectomy surgical site infection (SSI) rates before and after implementation of an SSI care bundle.

METHODS

An SSI bundle for abdominal hysterectomies was introduced in our hospital in April 2014 to reduce the SSI rate. The practices were divided into bundle elements around preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study around implementation of the SSI care bundle. Women were included if they underwent abdominal hysterectomy between 2012 and 2015. They were then divided into 2 study groups: prebundle and postbundle. The primary study outcome was SSI rate. The superficial SSI rate was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

The overall SSI rate was 6.18% in the prebundle group, with a median monthly SSI rate of 7.03%. After bundle implementation, the overall SSI rate declined to 2.51% (P = .02). The reduction remained significant after multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.88; P = .03) indicating a 62% reduction in SSI postbundle as compared to prebundle.When comparing rates based on infection classification, superficial SSIs declined significantly from 3.73% in the prebundle group to 0.90% in the postbundle group (P = 0.02). Patient demographics and pre-existing medical conditions were similar pre- and postbundle. Compliance with bundle elements was high.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant reduction in SSI rate in abdominal hysterectomies was seen following implementation of an infection prevention bundle.

Impact of a surgical site infection bundle on cesarean delivery infection rates

BACKGROUND

This study investigated cesarean delivery surgical site infection (SSI) rates before and after implementation of a SSI care bundle.

METHODS

A SSI bundle for cesareans was introduced in our hospital in April 2014 to reduce the SSI rate. The practices were divided into bundle elements that reflected preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate implementation of the SSI care bundle. Women were included if they had a gestational age of at least 23 0/7 weeks and delivered a liveborn neonate(s) between 2012 and 2015. They were then divided into 2 study groups: pre-bundle and post-bundle. The primary study outcome was SSI rate. Secondary outcomes included comorbidities, perioperative factors, and SSI classification.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of cesarean SSIs during the study time period was 1.89 (76 SSIs in 4014 cesarean deliveries). The pre-bundle mean was 2.44 and decreased to 1.1 following implementation of the SSI bundle (P = .013). This represents a 221% reduction in the SSI rate. Patient demographics and pre-existing medical conditions were similar pre- and post-bundle. Compliance with bundle elements was high.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant reduction in SSI rate in cesarean deliveries was seen following implementation of an infection prevention bundle.

Perforation rates in double latex gloves and protective effects of outer work gloves in a postmortem examination room: A STROBE-compliant study

Medical staff face the risk of exposure to blood-borne infectious agents during postmortem examinations. This study investigated the effectiveness of non-slip work gloves worn over 2 layers of surgical latex gloves (outer and inner gloves) as a means of reducing hand and finger injuries. Complete sets of outer and inner gloves worn during postmortem examinations were collected from participating forensic staff. Latex gloves were categorized into 2 groups based on the users' actions during the examination: the wearing group if the wearer wore their work gloves continuously without interruption, and the taking-off group if the wearer removed them at least once. Perforation rates, locations, and shapes were compared between these groups. Outer-glove perforation occurred significantly more often in the taking-off group (n = 102 pairs) than in the wearing group (n = 91 pairs) (30.4% vs 3.8%, P < .001). Inner-glove perforation occurred at rates of 2.0% and 0.5% (P = .38), respectively. The wearers did not incur hand or finger injuries. Perforation rates were similar between the dominant and non-dominant hands (P = .18). Regarding location, gloves were punctured most frequently at the thumb, followed by the index finger. Most examiners (85.6%) did not notice the perforation when the damage occurred. Therefore, we could not confirm that a specific operation within a set of plural operations affected the rate of perforation. Additionally, we could not prove a relationship between glove perforation and each operation performed with/without work gloves. The perforation appearances varied greatly in shape and size, suggesting multiple causes of perforation. The continuous (i.e., uninterrupted) wear of work gloves during postmortem examinations reduced the incidence of perforations in both latex glove layers and thus reduced the risk of hand and finger injury.

Incidence of sharps injuries in surgical units, a meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Sharps injuries occur often among surgical staff, but they vary considerably.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for studies assessing the incidence of sharps injuries. We combined the incidence rates of similar studies in a random effects meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity with meta-regression.

RESULTS

We located 45 studies of which 11 were randomized control trials, 15 were follow-up studies, and 19 were cross-sectional studies. We categorized injuries as self-reported, glove perforations, or administrative injuries. We calculated the population at risk as person-years and as person-operations (po). Meta-analysis of the incidence rate based on the best outcome measure resulted in 13.2 injuries per 100 time-units (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-37.1; I² = 100%). Per 100 person-years, the injury rate was 88.2 (95% CI, 61.3-126.9; 21 studies) for self-reported injuries, 40.0 for perforations (95% CI, 19.2-83.5; 15 studies), and 5.8 for administrative injuries (95% CI, 2.7-12.2; 5 studies). Per 100 po, the respective figures were 2.1 (95% CI, 0.8-5.0; 4 studies), 11.1 (95% CI, 6.6-18.9, 15 studies), and 0.1 (95% CI, 0.05-0.21). I² values were all above 90%. Meta-regression indicated lower incidence rates in studies that used perforations per po.

CONCLUSIONS

A surgeon will have a sharps injury in about 1 in 10 operations . Reporting of sharps injuries in surgical staff should be standardized per 100 po and be assessed in prospective follow-up studies.

Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) rates vary from 1% to 5% in the month following surgery. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these SSIs can be considerable in financial and social terms. Many interventions are used with the aim of reducing the risk of SSI in people undergoing surgery. These interventions can be broadly delivered at three stages: preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively. The intraoperative interventions are largely focused on decontamination of skin using soap and antiseptics; the use of barriers to prevent movement of micro-organisms into incisions; and optimising the patient's own bodily functions to promote best recovery. Both decontamination and barrier methods can be aimed at people undergoing surgery and operating staff. Other interventions focused on SSI prevention may be aimed at the surgical environment and include methods of theatre cleansing and approaches to managing theatre traffic.

OBJECTIVES

To present an overview of Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of interventions, delivered during the intraoperative period, aimed at preventing SSIs in all populations undergoing surgery in an operating theatre.

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting the effectiveness of interventions delivered during the intraoperative period in terms of SSI prevention were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane protocols and title registrations for future inclusion into the overview. We searched the Cochrane Library on 01 July 2017. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and certainty assessment. We used the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 Cochrane Reviews in this overview: we judged 30 reviews as being at low risk of bias and two at unclear risk of bias. Thirteen reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Two reviews had no relevant data to extract. We extracted data from 30 reviews with 349 included trials, totaling 73,053 participants. Interventions assessed included gloving, use of disposable face masks, patient oxygenation protocols, use of skin antiseptics for hand washing and patient skin preparation, vaginal preparation, microbial sealants, methods of surgical incision, antibiotic prophylaxis and methods of skin closure. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence for outcomes was low or very low. Of the 77 comparisons providing evidence for the outcome of SSI, seven provided high- or moderate-certainty evidence, 39 provided low-certainty evidence and 31 very low-certainty evidence. Of the nine comparisons that provided evidence for the outcome of mortality, five provided low-certainty evidence and four very low-certainty evidence.There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence for the following outcomes for these intraoperative interventions. (1) Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision reduce SSI risk compared with administration after cord clamping (10 trials, 5041 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.81; high-certainty evidence - assessed by review authors). (2) Preoperative antibiotics reduce SSI risk compared with placebo after breast cancer surgery (6 trials, 1708 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence - assessed by overview authors). (3) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduce SSI risk in caesarean sections compared with no antibiotics (82 relevant trials, 14,407 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by review authors). (4) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces SSI risk for hernia repair compared with placebo or no treatment (17 trials, 7843 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by overview authors); (5) There is currently no clear difference in the risk of SSI between iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes compared with no adhesive drapes (2 trials, 1113 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.60; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by review authors); (6) There is currently no clear difference in SSI risk between short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotics in colorectal surgery (7 trials; 1484 participants; RR 1.05 95% CI 0.78 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by overview authors). There was only one comparison showing negative effects associated with the intervention: adhesive drapes increase the risk of SSI compared with no drapes (5 trials; 3082 participants; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; high-certainty evidence - rated by review authors).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on use of intraoperative treatments for the prevention of SSIs from all currently published Cochrane Reviews. There is evidence that some interventions are useful in reducing SSI risk for people undergoing surgery, such as antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section and hernia repair, and also the timing of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision. Also, there is evidence that adhesive drapes increase SSI risk. Evidence for the many other treatment choices is largely of low or very low certainty and no quality-of-life or cost-effectiveness data were reported. Future trials should elucidate the relative effects of some treatments. These studies should focus on increasing participant numbers, using robust methodology and being of sufficient duration to adequately assess SSI. Assessment of other outcomes such as mortality might also be investigated as part of non-experimental prospective follow-up of people with SSI of different severity, so the risk of death for different subgroups can be better understood.

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.

Reducing needle stick injuries in healthcare occupations: an integrative review of the literature

Needlestick injuries frequently occur among healthcare workers, introducing high risk of bloodborne pathogen infection for surgeons, assistants, and nurses. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of both educational training and safeguard interventions to reduce needlestick injuries. Several databases were searched including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Sciencedirect. Studies were selected if the intervention contained a study group and a control group and were published between 2000 and 2010. Of the fourteen studies reviewed, nine evaluated a double-gloving method, one evaluated the effectiveness of blunt needle, and one evaluated a bloodborne pathogen educational training program. Ten studies reported an overall reduction in glove perforations for the intervention group. In conclusion, this review suggests that both safeguard interventions and educational training programs are effective in reducing the risk of having needlestick injuries. However, more studies using a combination of both safeguards and educational interventions in surgical and nonsurgical settings are needed.

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.

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.

Anticipated detection of imminent surgeon-patient barrier breaches. A prospective randomized controlled trial using an indicator underglove system

The double gloving indicator underglove system (IUS) is based on a colored detection of the outer glove perforation. Our objective was to determine the IUS efficiency to detect outer glove perforations and to reduce the risks of blood and body fluids exposure, warning the surgeon before the breach of the surgeon-patient barrier (SPB). A series of 100 visceral surgical procedures were randomly assigned to either double (IUS) or single gloving. The noticed glove perforations (using the water test method) and the IUS efficiency were analyzed in 99 procedures. In 49 single-gloving procedures, 19 perforations were noticed: one was immediately perceived (perceived accidental exposure, PAE); 3 were discovered as the gloves were being removed, and 15 were undetected before the water test (unperceived prolonged contact, UPC). In 50 double-gloving procedures (IUS), 16 perforations were noticed, all of them involving only the outer glove: the IUS allowed immediate detection of 3 perforations without any blood exposure; 13 other perforations went undetected but without any UPC. In conjunction with the protective quality of double gloving, the IUS allows detection of significant breaches of the outer glove before the breach of the SPB.

Randomized controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study presented here were to compare the rate of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods, and the time of operation and level of surgeon in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery.

METHOD

A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from the beginning of May to the end of December, 2002 at Ramathibodi Hospital. A comparison of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods was performed. Glove perforations were tested by filling each glove with water. Glove perforation rate, position of perforation, time of operation and surgeon level of experience were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty sets of double-gloving method and 150 sets of single-gloving method were evaluated. The glove perforation rates were 4.6 and 18% in double-inner gloves and single-gloves, respectively, with statistical difference (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between glove perforation rates in double-outer gloves (22.6%) and single-gloves (18%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 2% of all double-inner gloves. The frequency of glove perforation was classified by the surgeon's level of experience and time of operation was no difference in each level.

CONCLUSION

The double-gloving method significantly reduced the risk of exposure of the surgeon's hand to the patient's blood, when compared with the single-gloving method in episiotomy repair. There were no differences in the rate of glove perforations compared to the time of operation and level of surgeon.