Should outer surgical gloves be changed intraoperatively before orthopaedic prosthesis implantation?

Preventing Bacterial Contamination of Breast Implants Using Infection Mitigation Techniques: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Bacterial contamination of implants has been linked to biofilm formation and subsequent infection, capsular contracture, and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Reducing contamination during implant insertion should therefore reduce biofilm formation disease sequelae.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare levels of contamination between preventative techniques.

METHODS

A model to simulate the passage of implants through a skin incision was designed that utilized a sterile textured polyvinyl plastic sheet contaminated with Staphylococcus epidermidis. In the first stage of the polyvinyl contamination model, implants were subject to infection-mitigation techniques and passed through the incision, then placed onto horse blood agar plates and incubated for 24 hours. In the second stage of the study the same contamination was applied to human abdominal wall specimens. A 5 cm incision was made through skin and fat, then implants were passed through and levels of contamination were measured as described.

RESULTS

Smooth implants grew a mean of 95 colony-forming units (CFUs; approximately 1 CFU/cm2) and textured implants grew 86 CFUs (also approximately 1 CFU/cm2). CFU counts were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U-test which showed no significant difference between implant types (P < .05); independent-sample t-tests showed a significant difference. The dependent-variable techniques were then compared as groups by one-way analysis of variance, which also showed a significant reduction compared with the control group (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

This in vitro study has shown the effectiveness of antiseptic rinse and skin/implant barrier techniques for reducing bacterial contamination of breast implants at the time of insertion.

Reducing ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection with intraoperative glove removal

BACKGROUND

Contamination of ventriculoperitoneal shunts (VPS) by cutaneous flora, particularly coagulase-negative staphylococci, is a common cause of shunt infection and failure, leading to prolonged hospital stay, higher costs of care, and poor outcomes. Glove contamination may occur during VPS insertion, increasing risk of such infections.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the PubMed database for studies published January 1, 1970, through August 31, 2021 that documented VPS infection rates before and after implementing a practice of double gloving with change or removal of the outer glove immediately prior to shunt insertion.

RESULTS

Among 272 reports screened, 4 were eligible for review based on our inclusion criteria. The incidence of VPS infection was reduced in all 4 quasi-experimental studies with an aggregate incidence of VPS infection of 11.8% before the change in intraoperative protocol and 4.9% after protocol change. One study documented reduced hospital stay with this change in protocol.

CONCLUSION

The risk of VPS infection is reduced by removal or replacement of the outer surgical gloves immediately prior to intraoperative insertion of a VPS as part of an infection control bundle.

Prevalence and quantification of contamination of knitted cotton outer gloves during hip and knee arthroplasty surgery

INTRODUCTION

Knitted cotton outer gloves offer protection against surgical glove perforation and provide improved grip on instruments. These gloves absorb blood and other fluids during surgery, and may therefore also accumulate contaminating bacteria. To date, there is no published data on microbial contamination of such gloves during surgery.

METHODS

Knitted cotton outer gloves used in primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty from two Swiss hospitals were analysed by quantitative bacteriology. Samples were subjected to sonication and vortexing, followed by membrane filtration of the sonicate. Membranes were incubated under aerobic and anaerobic culture conditions, respectively, for 21 days. Total microbial load for each pair of gloves was determined by colony-forming units (CFU) count. Strain identification was performed with MALDI-TOF.

RESULTS

A total of 43 pairs of gloves were collected from continuous series of surgeries. Under aerobic culture conditions, total CFU counts ranged 0-1103, 25 (58%) samples remaining sterile, and 4 (9%) yielding > 100 CFU. Under anaerobic culture conditions, total CFU counts ranged 0-3579, 22 (51%) samples remaining sterile, 6 (14%) yielding > 100 CFU. The only covariate significantly associated with the level of contamination was the provider hospital (p < 0.0001 for aerobic and p = 0.007 for anaerobic cultures). Strain identification revealed only skin commensals, mainly coagulase-negative staphylococci and Propionibacterium spp.

CONCLUSION

While contamination of surgical latex gloves is a well-known issue, no study has examined so far contamination of knitted cotton outer gloves. No or very low microbial contamination could be identified in the majority of the knitted cotton outer gloves assayed. However, a relevant proportion showed contamination far higher than estimated minimal thresholds for implant-associated infection. Clinical relevance of these findings remains to be established.

Efficacy of Intraoperative Implant Prophylaxis in Reducing Intraoperative Microbial Contamination

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective single-center study.

OBJECTIVES

Assess to what degree contamination of pedicle screws occur in standard intraoperative practice and if use of an impermeable guard could mitigate or reduce such an occurrence.

METHODS

Two groups of sterile prepackaged pedicle screws, one with an intraoperative guard (group 1) and the other without such a guard (group 2), each consisting of 5 samples distributed over 3 time points, were loaded onto the insertion device by the scrub tech and left on the sterile table. Approximately 20 minutes later, the lead surgeon who had just finished preparing the surgical site touches the pedicle screw. Then instead of implantation it was transferred to a sterile container using fresh clean gloves for bacterial and gene analysis. Guarded screw implies that even after unwrapping from the package, the screw carries an impermeable barrier along its entire length, which is only removed seconds prior to implantation.

RESULTS

The standard unguarded pedicle screws presented bioburden in the range of 10⁵ to 10⁷ (colony forming units/implant) with bacterial genus mostly consisting of Staphylococcus and Micrococcus, the 2 most common genera found in surgical site infection reports. The common species among them were Staphylococcus epidermis, Staphylococcus aureus, Micrococcus luteus, and Staphylococcus pettenkoferi, whereas the guarded pedicle screws showed no bioburden.

CONCLUSIONS

Shielding the pedicle screws intraoperatively using a guard provides a superior level of asepsis than currently practiced. All unshielded pedicles screws were carrying bioburden of virulent bacterial species, which provides an opportunity for the development of postoperative infections.

Operation Department: Infection Control

Infection control in the operation department is the result of many single factors and routines, based on experience, documentation and expert panels through more than a hundred years. Many factors and routines in surgery are evidence-based, but most of them are still lacking evidence and can probably never be investigated because of ethical problems. Consequently, consensus and guidance are used to a great extent. Surgery opens into sterile tissues for hours, where there is massive tissue damage by knife, diathermy, clogging of vessels, pressure against and drying of tissues, decreased blood supply, impaired phagocytosis and impaired infection defence. Microbes deposited in this devitalized tissues may find a good basis for growth and proliferation if there is lack of infection control and sterility. For patients with ongoing infections and who need surgery, special routines are made to prevent the spread of infections in the operation department. This chapter is a practical description of many important preventive procedures that may protect the surgical patient against surgical site infection (SSI).

Implant Prophylaxis: The Next Best Practice Toward Asepsis in Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A literature review.

OBJECTIVES

An evaluation of the contaminants prevalent on implants used for surgery and the aseptic methods being employed against them.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 for studies evaluating the contaminants present on spine implants, and associated pre- and intraoperative implant processing and handling methodology suggested to avoid them. Systematic reviews, observational studies, bench-top studies, and expert opinions were included.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified whose major focus was the asepsis of implants to reduce the incidence of surgical site infection incidences during surgery. These studies measured the colony forming units of bacteria on sterilized implants and/or gloves from the surgeon, scrub nurse, and assistants, as well as reductions of surgical site infection rates in spine surgery due to changes in implant handling techniques. Additionally, the search included assessments of endotoxins and carbohydrates present on reprocessed implants. The suggested changes to surgical practice based on these studies included handling implants with only fresh gloves, keeping implants covered until the immediate time of use, reducing operating room traffic, avoiding reprocessing of implants (ie, providing terminally sterilized implants), and avoiding touching the implants altogether.

CONCLUSIONS

Both reprocessing (preoperative) and handling (intraoperative) of implants seem to lead to contamination of sterilized implants. Using a terminally sterilized device may mitigate reprocessing (preoperative implant prophylaxis), whereas the use of fresh gloves for handling each implant and/or a permanent shielding technique (intraoperative implant prophylaxis) could potentially avoid recontamination at the theatre.

[Evaluation of adherence to measures for the prevention of surgical site infections by the surgical team]

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate pre- and intraoperative practices adopted by medical and nursing teams for the prevention of surgical infections.

METHOD

A prospective study carried out in the period of April to May 2013, in a surgical center of a university hospital in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais.

RESULTS

18 surgeries were followed and 214 surgical gloves were analyzed, of which 23 (10.7%) had postoperative glove perforation detected, with 52.2% being perceived by users. Hair removal was performed on 27.7% of patients in the operating room, with the use of blades in 80% of the cases. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 81.8% of patients up to 60 minutes prior to surgical incision. An average of nine professionals were present during surgery and the surgery room door remained open in 94.4% of the procedures.

CONCLUSION

Partial adhesion to the recommended measures was identified, reaffirming a need for greater attention to these critical steps/actions in order to prevent surgical site infection.