A cross-sectional study of surgical glove perforation during the posterior lumbar interbody spinal fusion surgery: Its frequency, location, and risk factors

The global incidence and associated factors of surgical gloves perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgeon's hands are exposed to a range of chemical and physical stressors that influence the integrity of gloves. Thus, glove perforation facilitates pathogen transmission through the holes. Numerous studies have shown that glove perforation is of great importance, but there is still no complete consensus.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the safety conditions of surgical gloves based on the incidence of glove perforation among surgical teams.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ISI, and ProQuest databases. The incidence of glove perforation was reviewed in eight categories. A total of 580 articles were found in the initial search.

RESULTS

109 articles containing 130 datasets were analyzed. The overall incidence of glove perforation was 14.44 %. Surgeons had the highest incidence of glove perforation (23.09 %). An increase in the duration of surgery increased the odds of perforation. It was found that 68.58% of the glove perforations were not identified by practitioners.

CONCLUSION

Despite major advances in the design of surgical gloves, the issue of safety and integrity of gloves has not improved. Due to the high incidence of surgical glove perforations, most of which had not been identified, it is imperative to consider strategies to minimize the incidence of perforation. The results of the present study can be used to integrate information related to the rate of perforation of surgical gloves in different surgeries.

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.

Association Between the Frequency of Glove Change and the Risk of Blood and Body Fluid Exposure in Gastrointestinal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical gloves are used to prevent the transmission of microorganisms from the surgeon's hands to the patient and vice versa. Little is known on the optimal frequency of glove changing. Therefore, we aimed to examine the optimal frequency of glove change during surgery by assessing the glove perforation rate in gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

In this observational prospective cohort study, we investigated the incidence of perforation of 5,267 gloves during gastrointestinal surgeries.

RESULTS

The overall glove perforation rate was 10.1%. There was no significant difference between single gloving (10.2%) and double gloving (10.0%; p = 0.8491). However, the perforation rate of the inner glove (5.7%) was found to be significantly lower than that of the outer glove (11.6%) (p < 0.0001). A significant difference in perforation rate was observed after wearing inner gloves for 240 min (< 240 min, 4.4%; ≤ 240 min, 7.2%; p = 0.0314), and outer gloves for 60 min (< 60 min, 7.1%; ≤ 60 min, 12.6%; p < 0.0001). We found cumulative perforation rate to rapidly increase until the wear time was 90 min.

CONCLUSION

The inner gloves and outer gloves have a higher perforation rate as the wear time increased. To reduce the risk of intraoperative blood and fluid exposure and prevent healthcare-associated infection, gloves should be changed for approximately every 60-90 min for outer gloves and approximately every 240 min for inner gloves.