The use of blunt needles does not reduce glove perforations during obstetrical laceration repair

Time to consider blunt needles for implant surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis shows that blunt suture needles reduce glove perforation

BACKGROUND

Despite a recent Cochrane Review demonstrating blunt suture needles are safer for surgeons, the use of blunt suture needles has not become widely adopted. In the 'Implant Era', with the value of medical implant companies to surpass $145 billion by 2027, should we re-examine the use of blunt suture needles, especially to reduce infection in implant surgery? We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing whether blunt suture needles reduce risks to surgeons and patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for RCTs. Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the MH method. Random or fixed effects modelling use was based on statistical heterogeneity (I2).

RESULTS

14 RCTs were identified with 2488 patients. The RCTs included laparotomies, caesarean sections, episiotomies, and orthopaedic surgeries. Blunt suture needles when compared with sharp needles resulted in a significant reduction in glove perforation; RR: 0.47, 95% CI [0.37 to 0.60] and needlestick injuries, RR: 0.50, 95% CI [0.26 to 0.97]. Sharp needles caused more wound infections, but the result was not statistically significant; RR: 2.73, 95% CI [0.54 to 13.76], p 0.22. Surgeon's satisfaction decreased with blunt needles compared with sharp (RR: 1.22, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.37]).

CONCLUSION

Blunt suture needles are safer than sharp needles for surgeons and likely reduce risks to patients. This, however, comes at the cost of decreased ease of use. The authors recommend the routine use of blunt suture needles, especially in implant surgery.

Innovative Fabrication of Hollow Microneedle Arrays Enabling Blood Sampling with a Self-Powered Microfluidic Patch

Microneedles are gaining a lot of attention in the context of sampling cutaneous biofluids such as capillary blood. Their minimal invasiveness and user-friendliness make them a prominent substitute for venous puncture or finger-pricking. Although the latter is suitable for self-sampling, the impracticality of manual handling and the difficulty of obtaining enough qualitative sample is driving the search for better solutions. In this context, hollow microneedle arrays (HMNAs) are particularly interesting for completely integrating sample-to-answer solutions as they create a duct between the skin and the sampling device. However, the fabrication of sharp-tipped HMNAs with a high aspect ratio (AR) is challenging, especially since a length of ≥1500 μm is desired to reach the blood capillaries. In this paper, we first described a novel two-step fabrication protocol for HMNAs in stainless steel by percussion laser drilling and subsequent micro-milling. The HMNAs were then integrated into a self-powered microfluidic sampling patch, containing a capillary pump which was optimized to generate negative pressure differences up to 40.9 ± 1.8 kPa. The sampling patch was validated in vitro, showing the feasibility of sampling 40 μL of liquid. It is anticipated that our proof-of-concept is a starting point for more sophisticated all-in-one biofluid sampling and point-of-care testing systems.

Hawthorne effect on surgical studies

BACKGROUND

The Hawthorne effect or 'observer effect' describes a change in normal behaviour when individuals are aware they are being observed. This may have an impact on effect estimates in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Hawthorne effect had been recorded as a risk of bias in surgical studies.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant literature search was conducted till March 2019. Eligible studies included those reporting or not reporting the Hawthorne effect in surgical studies from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, BNI, HMIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Two reviewers independently reviewed the papers, extracted data and appraised study methods using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 842 papers were identified, of which 16 were eligible. Six (37%) observational studies were identified with the aim of measuring the Hawthorne effect on their outcome with five reporting that the Hawthorne effect was responsible for the improvements in outcomes and one reporting no change in outcome due to the Hawthorne effect. Ten (63%) studies were identified, of which eight used the Hawthorne effect as an explanation to improvements seen in the control group or their secondary outcomes and two to compare their results with other studies.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable between-study heterogeneity on how the Hawthorne effect relates to surgical outcomes. Further consideration on reporting and considering the importance of the Hawthorne effect in the design of surgical trials is warranted.

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.

Role of blunt suture needle in episiotomy repair at uncomplicated vaginal deliveries in reducing glove perforation rate: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of blunt suture needles for episiotomy repair at uncomplicated vaginal deliveries in reducing glove perforation rate.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial wherein 300 nulliparous women with uncomplicated vaginal deliveries were randomized to episiotomy repair with either blunt or sharp suture needles. Patient demographics and clinical variables were collected. Postoperatively, the surgeons were surveyed regarding ease of using the needle, and glove perforation was determined by three tests: air insufflation, water filling and water load.

RESULTS

A total of 41 perforations occurred in the 39 episiotomy repairs with glove perforations (13%). There was a significantly higher number of glove perforations using the sharp suture needles (28/150; 18.7%) than with the blunt suture needles (11/150; 7.3%) (P = 0.005). Glove perforation of the non-dominant hand occurred in 90% of the cases. Using a blunt suture needle took significantly more time (P < 0.001) to complete the repair than using a sharp needle. Surgeons reported that blunt needles were more difficult to use than sharp needles (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Blunt suture needles for episiotomy repair were shown to have a significantly lower instance of glove perforation but required more time and are perceived to be more difficult to complete the repair as compared to sharp needles.

Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff

BACKGROUND

Surgeons and their assistants are especially at risk of exposure to blood due to glove perforations and needle stick injuries during operations. The use of blunt needles can reduce this risk because they don't penetrate skin easily but still perform sufficiently in other tissues.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of blunt needles compared to sharp needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among surgical staff.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (until May 2011), CENTRAL, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, PsycINFO, and LILACS (until September 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing needle stick injuries among surgical staff measured as glove perforations or self-reported needle stick injuries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias in trials and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed-effect model meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We located 10 RCTs involving 2961 participating surgeons performing an operation in which the use of blunt needles was compared to the use of sharp needles. Four studies focused on abdominal closure, two on caesarean section, two on vaginal repair and two on hip replacement. On average, a surgeon that used sharp needles sustained one glove perforation in three operations. The use of blunt needles reduced the risk of glove perforations with a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.54) compared to sharp needles. The use of blunt needles will thus prevent one glove perforation in every six operations.In four studies, the use of blunt needles reduced the number of self-reported needle stick injuries with a RR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.68). Because the force needed for the blunt needles is higher, their use was rated as more difficult but still acceptable in five out of six studies.The quality of the evidence was rated as high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that the use of blunt needles appreciably reduces the risk of exposure to blood and bodily fluids for surgeons and their assistants over a range of operations. It is unlikely that future research will change this conclusion.

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.