Sterility and cost of gloves during Mohs micrographic surgery: Sterile or peril?

Main Operating Room Versus Field Sterility in Hand Surgery: A Review of the Evidence

Introduction: Many of the guidelines that are generally accepted as main operating room best practices are not evidence based. They are based on the concept that if some sterility is good, more must be better. They are not derived from evidence-based sterility. Evidence-based sterility is the study of which of our various sterility practices increase or decrease our infection rates, as opposed to guidelines based on how many bacteria are in the operating room. Methods: This article adds the most important evidence we could find that is not included in the first paper on evidence-based sterility in hand surgery published in 2019. In this review, we also balance the evidence with common sense opinion. Results: The 21st century has seen a rapid rise in the number and reports of hand surgery procedures performed with field sterility outside the main operating room. There is now an abundance of good evidence to support that the rate of infection is not higher when many hand operations are performed with field sterility in minor procedure rooms. Conclusion: Moving hand surgery out of the main operating room to minor procedure rooms should be supported by healthcare providers. The higher cost, increased solid waste, and inconvenience of main operating room surgery are not justifiable for many procedures because it does not reduce the risk of postoperative infection.

Variability in personal protective equipment in cross-sectional interventional abdominal radiology practices

Purpose

To determine institutional practice requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) in cross-sectional interventional radiology (CSIR) procedures among a variety of radiology practices in the USA and Canada.

Methods

Members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) CSIR Emerging Technology Commission (ETC) were sent an eight-question survey about what PPE they were required to use during common CSIR procedures: paracentesis, thoracentesis, thyroid fine needle aspiration (FNA), superficial lymph node biopsy, deep lymph node biopsy, solid organ biopsy, and ablation. Types of PPE evaluated were sterile gloves, surgical masks, gowns, surgical hats, eye shields, foot covers, and scrubs.

Results

26/38 surveys were completed by respondents at 20/22 (91%) institutions. The most common PPE was sterile gloves, required by 20/20 (100%) institutions for every procedure. The second most common PPE was masks, required by 14/20 (70%) institutions for superficial and deep procedures and 12/12 (100%) institutions for ablation. Scrubs, sterile gowns, eye shields, and surgical hats were required at nearly all institutions for ablation, whereas approximately half of institutions required their use for deep lymph node and solid organ biopsy. Compared with other types of PPE, required mask and eye shield use showed the greatest increase during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Conclusion

PPE use during common cross-sectional procedures is widely variable. Given the environmental and financial impact and lack of consensus practice, further studies examining the appropriate level of PPE are needed.

Graphical abstract