A prospective study of the efficacy of various gloving techniques in the application of Erich arch bars

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

AIM

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of a conventional Erich's arch bar vs a modified screw-retained arch bar in maxillomandibular fixation of mandibular fracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This parallel-arm randomized control trial included patients from the outpatient clinic with single favorable mandibular fractures that are indicated for closed reduction. They were subjected to maxillomandibular fixation using conventional Erich's arch bars in the control group and modified screw-retained arch bars in the study group. The outcome measures included operating time, glove perforations, postoperative pain, oral hygiene, fixation stability, occlusion, and mucosal coverage.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) with a 1:1 allocation ratio were included. There was a significant statistical difference regarding operation time and number of glove perforations in favor of group B as p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively. There was a significant statistical difference regarding pain after 1 day (p < 0.001), 1 week (p < 0.001) in favor of group B, and at 4 weeks (p = 0.015), and 6 weeks (p = 0.002) in favor of group A. Regarding oral hygiene at 1 week (p = 0.021) and at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group B. Regarding mucosal coverage at 6 weeks, there was a significant statistical difference in favor of group A (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The modified screw-retained arch bar can be considered an alternative to conventional arch bar as it provided less application time and better operator safety. It also showed better patient satisfaction regarding pain and oral hygiene.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Maxillomandibular fixation with the conventional technique was modified to screw-retained arch bar which is less time-consuming and provides better patient and operator satisfaction. How to cite this article: Elhadidi MH, Awad S, Elsheikh HAE, et al. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Screw-retained Arch Bar vs Conventional Erich's Arch Bar in Maxillomandibular Fixation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):928-935.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Study Design

A clinical randomized control trial.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes.

Results

The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed.

Conclusions

Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.

The use of screw retained hybrid arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation in the treatment of mandibular fractures: A comparative study

Introduction:

The use of screw-retained hybrid arch bars (HABs) is a relatively recent development in the treatment of mandibular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome between HAB and the conventional Erich arch bar (EAB) in the closed treatment of mandibular fractures.

Materials and Methods:

This study included 18 patients who were treated for mandibular fractures with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), patients were randomly assigned into a control group (n = 10) in which EAB was used and study group (n = 8) in which HAB was used. The outcome variables were time required for application and removal, gingival inflammation scores, postoperative complications, and incidence of wire-stick injury or gloves perforation. The groups were compared using unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney test, Chi-square test, or Fisher test. The differences were considered significant at P < 0.05.

Results:

The mean application time was significantly more in EAB than HAB (61.6 ± 11.4 vs. 41.6 ± 6 min, respectively). The mean time of removal for EAB was significantly less than HAB (11.1 ± 2 vs. 14.2 ± 3 min, respectively). There was nonsignificant difference in gingival inflammation between the groups. No major complications were recorded. Screw loosening and mucosal overgrowth were recorded in 12.5% and 31.2% of the screws, respectively, in HAB group. The incidence of gloves tear in EAB group was 70%.

Discussion:

HAB can be used as an alternative to EAB for MMF in patients with mandibular fracture, it requires less time for application and provides more safety for the surgeons.

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.

Evaluation of two different methods of arch bar application: a comparative prospective study

PURPOSE

To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of a pencil type wire twister and the normal wire twister in terms of various parameters during arch bars application.

METHOD

The study involved residents of the department enrolled in MDS course. Two study groups of 60 patients each were made by randomly selecting the patients from the outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery who required arch bar application. Group A included the patients who underwent upper and lower arch bar application with the use of a pencil type twister and group B included patients who underwent arch bar application with a normal wire twister. All respondents were given a questionnaire after the completion of procedure involving the use of medical sharps. The paired samples t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULT

Among group A, mean glove perforations, actual wire stick injuries, mean time taken to complete the procedure, mean wire breakage during the procedure was less than in group B. Comfort level of patients and Ease of operator while performing the procedure was more in group A than in group B. Frictional abrasion of the finger was not associated with the use of pencil type twister. Overall rating of the procedure was more in group A than group B.

CONCLUSION

The use of pencil type wire twister outweighs normal wire twister in various ways. It increases the overall efficacy of the operator during the procedure.

Effects of glovebox gloves on grip and key pinch strength and contact forces for simulated manual operations with three commonly used hand tools

This study examined the effects of glovebox gloves for 11 females on maximum grip and key pinch strength and on contact forces generated from simulated tasks of a roller, a pair of tweezers and a crescent wrench. The independent variables were gloves fabricated of butyl, CSM/hypalon and neoprene materials; two glove thicknesses; and layers of gloves worn including single, double and triple gloving. CSM/hypalon and butyl gloves produced greater grip strength than the neoprene gloves. CSM/hypalon gloves also lowered contact forces for roller and wrench tasks. Single gloving and thin gloves improved hand strength performances. However, triple layers lowered contact forces for all tasks. Based on the evaluating results, selection and design recommendations of gloves for three hand tools were provided to minimise the effects on hand strength and optimise protection of the palmar hand in glovebox environments.

PRACTITIONER SUMMARY

To improve safety and health in the glovebox environments where gloves usage is a necessity, this study provides recommendations for selection and design of glovebox gloves for three hand tools including a roller, a pair of tweezers and a crescent wrench based on the results discovered in the experiments.

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.

Reduction of mandible fractures with direct bonding technique and orthodontic appliances: two case reports

Intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with the arch bars or looped wires has been widely used to treat mandible fractures. However, manipulation of these appliances takes time and the medical staff is endangered by wire stabbing injuries. A modified method, the direct bonding technique combined with orthodontic appliances, simplifies the IMF concept to overcome these problems. It is faster, safer and easier to apply while the response of patients, with respect to treatment results, ease of the living and oral hygiene is more favorable. This report presents two cases of mandible fractures treated according to this protocol which resulted in good outcomes as expected.

Scalpel safety in the operative setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The complex environment of the operative setting provides multiple opportunities for health care workers to sustain scalpel injuries; scalpels are the second most frequent source of sharps injuries in this setting. Little evidence has been published detailing the effectiveness of proposed safety procedures and devices.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant studies. Studies were included based on the application of a predetermined protocol, an independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a consensus decision. Nineteen articles formed the evidence base for this review.

RESULTS

Little high-level evidence was available. The results of studies reporting on 5 different devices/procedures were identified: the use of cut-resistant gloves/liners decreased the number of glove perforations in comparison with double latex gloves alone but lessened the wearer's dexterity and tactile sensation; the benefit derived from the use of the hands-free passing technique seemed equivocal; "sharpless surgery" was found to be feasible; a single-handed blade remover prevented at least as many injuries as a safety scalpel; and some shoe materials provided superior foot protection.

CONCLUSION

The lack of available evidence highlights the need for the generation of a methodologically rigorous, clinically relevant, and statistically valid body of primary research in this area to support appropriate and effective safety interventions.

Cut-resistant protective gloves in pathology--effective and cost-effective

Cutting injuries and needle-stitch injuries constitute a potentially fatal danger to both pathologists and autopsy personnel. We evaluated such injuries in a large German institute of pathology from 2002 to 2007 and analysed the effect of the introduction of cut-resistant gloves on the incidence of these injuries. In the observation period, 64 injuries (48 cutting injuries and 16 needle-stitch injuries) were noted in the injury report books. Most injuries were located at the non-dominant hand, preferentially at the index finger and the thumb. Around one fifths of the injuries were at the side of handedness. The average number of injuries per month was 1.22 for the 50 months prior to the introduction of cut-resistant gloves, more than seven times higher than after their introduction (0.158; 19 months; p < 0.001). Considering the medical and administrational costs of such injuries, cut-resistant protective gloves are an effective and cost-effective completion of personal occupational safety measures in surgical pathology and autopsy. We strongly recommend the use of such gloves, especially for autopsy personnel.

Comparative analysis of 2 techniques of double-gloving protection during arch bar placement for intermaxillary fixation

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to comparatively evaluate, in a prospective and randomized manner, 2 techniques for providing double-gloving protection during arch bar placement for intermaxillary fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 42 consecutive patients in whom application of an Erich bar was indicated for intermaxillary fixation were equally divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 2 sterile surgical gloves were used; in group 2, a nonsterile disposable inner glove was used under a sterile surgical glove. Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and binomial statistical tests were used to analyze the findings.

RESULTS

A total of 103 perforations were found in the outer gloves (47 in group 1 and 56 in group 2), along with 5 perforations in inner gloves in both groups (alpha = .01). No significant statistical difference was found between groups in terms of inner glove perforations (alpha = .05). The nondominant hand presented with 70.9% of the perforations, statistically significant to 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both double-gloving techniques were found to provide effective clinician protection. The use of a nonsterile disposable glove under the surgical glove is possible for less-invasive procedures, offering the same safety as using 2 sterile surgical gloves while decreasing operational costs. This method does not eliminate the need to change gloves when a perforation is suspected or noted during the surgery, however.

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.

Improving glove barrier effectiveness

Perioperative staff members depend on surgical gloves to prevent disease transmission between themselves and patients, but these gloves frequently fail during use. Three approaches can make surgical gloves more effective barriers: preventing glove failures, monitoring glove integrity, and improving glove quality. Failure prevention includes modifying surgical techniques, improving instruments and equipment, streamlining teamwork, selecting the most appropriate gloves, double gloving, and performing preventive glove changes. Glove integrity monitoring can be performed visually or by feel, by wearing glove pairs with color-puncture indicators, or by using electronic monitoring devices. Glove quality improvements must be accompanied by testing methods that reflect in-use conditions. A glove rating system that is based on in-use performance may enhance glove safety substantially.