Glove perforation in elective orthopedic surgery

Does exposure to polymethyl methacrylate bone cement increase the risk of surgical glove failure?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical glove perforation has been linked to a double-fold increased risk of surgical site infection. Infection in the context of arthroplasty can have devastating consequences. In orthopaedics, use of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is commonplace, and the impact on glove strength and perforation risk is not fully understood. This study aimed to examine the resistance to perforation and thickness of gloves following PMMA exposure, in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for glove integrity.

METHODS

Pairs of gloves were separated and randomly sorted into exposure and control groups. Twenty pairs of latex and 40 pairs of polyisoprene gloves were used. Exposure group glove cuffs were in contact with cement from a single surface of the glove for 13 min as cement cured. Force to perforation and glove thickness were tested in accordance with ISO guidelines.

RESULTS

Latex gloves were found to have a significantly increased force to perforation following PMMA exposure (10.26 Newtons (N) vs. 9.81 N, P = 0.048). Both polyisoprene under- and over-gloves were shown to have no significant change in strength to perforation post exposure (9.69 N vs. 9.83 N, P = 0.561, and 10.26 N vs. 10.65 N, P = 0.168, respectively). All groups were over the ISO standard minimum strength of 5 N.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure of latex and polyisoprene surgical gloves to PMMA bone cement does not appear to increase glove perforation risk and rather may improve natural rubber latex glove strength. This study supports the use of latex and polyisoprene surgical gloves in procedures that involve the handling of PMMA bone cement.

Surgical Gloves in Orthopedic Trauma Procedures: How Many Lose Their Integrity?

Introduction  The possibility of perforation of gloves during orthopedic surgeries can reach 56.8%, and it mainly related to the manipulation of blunt instruments. Surgeries for the treatment of fractures and trauma present additional risk due to contact with bone spires.

Objective  Analysis of the prevalence of loss of integrity of surgical gloves in orthopedic trauma procedures, especially fractures, and evaluation of the surgeon's exposure and contact with secretions from the patient.

Methods  Macroscopic inspection of the gloves of two surgeons specialized in trauma, over a period of 4 months. Both used two gloves for all procedures and, at the end of the surgery, analyzed the presence or absence of blood stains on the internal gloves and/or fingers. The procedures were categorized according to the time and type of surgery. The intercurrence investigated was the perforation of one or two gloves; if the tear was perceived immediately or only at the end of the surgery, and the location of and reason for the tear, if identified.

Results  A total of 210 surgeries were included, 87 of which presented perforations, with 17 cases occurring in both gloves and 70 only in the outer glove. Finally, there was a more significant relationship with open focus surgeries and duration > 60 minutes.

Conclusion  Our results suggest that greater care and inspection of gloves to look for damage are needed in prolonged surgeries with an open focus.

At what point during total knee arthroplasty operations are gloves most frequently torn?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the time points during a total knee arthroplasty operation when there is the greatest possibility of tearing a surgical glove and thus the stage of the operation at which there is the greatest risk of infection.

METHODS

The study included 300 total knee arthroplasty cases performed by 10 orthopedic surgeons. Using a chronometer during the operation, the upper layer of each surgical glove was removed and inflated with sterile saline at 10-min intervals. When a tear was determined, a record was made of the time it occurred, the stage of the operation, the finger that was torn, and the side (right or left hand).

RESULTS

The mean time of the glove perforation was 40.74 ± 10.69 min. Glove tears occurred at the rate of 28.9% (n = 39) in the thumb, 63.7% (n = 86) in the index finger, 2.2% (n = 3) in the middle finger, and 5.2% (n = 7) in the ring finger. The tears occurred after the femoral cut in 8.1% (n = 11), after the tibial cut in 14.8% (n = 20), at the stage of trial component reduction in 52.6% of cases (n = 71), after placement of the prosthesis in 7.4% (n = 10), and at the closure stage in 17% (n = 23) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The fingers requiring the most care during total knee arthroplasty are the thumb and index finger. The stages of the operation with the greatest risk for glove tears are trial component reduction and wound closure. Changing gloves after these high-risk surgical stages would help to decrease the risk of periprosthetic infections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV/Case series.

Glove Perforation in Orthopaedics: Probability of Tearing Gloves During High-Risk Events in Trauma Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of glove perforation during common maneuvers or events in trauma-related orthopaedic surgical procedures.

METHODS

Four investigators executed 6 high-risk maneuvers in a simulated laboratory setting. Alternative techniques were also performed for most maneuvers. Glove integrity was examined by 2 standard methods of fluid leak testing. The rates of perforation were compared between techniques using χ and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Investigators were only able to identify 14.3% of perforations. Cleaning drill bit flutes by hand had the highest overall tear rate (85%). Catching a glove along the guide wire when passing a cannulated drill bit resulted in a 50% perforation rate. Catching a glove around a rotating drill shaft had a tear rate of 40%. Palpating the end of a flexible nail cut with a wire cutter had a significantly higher perforation rate than a nail cut with a proprietary, nail-specific tool (35% vs. 5%, P = 0.022). Blind digital fracture reduction had a tear rate that was not statistically different than directly visualizing the reduction (20% vs. 15%, P = 0.5). Inserting screws while stabilizing the threads with one's fingers resulted in a perforation rate of 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that microperforation of surgical gloves often goes undetected and should consider modifying or using alternative techniques when performing certain surgical maneuvers. The results of this study can be used by orthopaedic and surgical first assist training programs to promote safe surgical practice.

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

Lumbar fusion surgery was known to pose a greater risk of surgical glove perforation. However, there has been no study on the glove perforation that can transmit the blood-borne disease to the patient and surgical staff members in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIFs).We performed a cross-sectional study to investigate the glove perforation during the PLIFs. The study included 37 consecutive patients (10 males and 27 females). All used gloves of surgical staff members, which included the surgeon, assistant surgeons, bone trimmer (who performed local bone trimming and interbody cage preparation), and scrub nurse were collected and were performed to the pinhole water infusion test. The characteristics (i.e., frequency and location of perforated glove) and relative risk of glove perforation were investigated for each participant. The independent risk factors influencing glove perforation were analyzed by multiple logistic regression analysis.The overall operative perforation rate which is a percentage of detected more than one glove perforated event in all cases was 51.4%. The overall glove perforation rate which is the percentage of perforated gloves in all gloves used for surgery was 3.8%. The relative risk of glove perforation by each participant was 2.38 in the surgeon (P = .002), 1.36 in the bone trimmer (P = .04), 1.36 in the scrub nurse (P = .04), and 1.19 in assistant surgeons (P = .13). And, the volume of trimmed local bone was analyzed as an independent risk factor for glove perforation (ORs = 1.310, P = .02).The overall operative perforation rate in PLIFs is higher than 50%. The surgeon, scrub nurse and bone trimmer were observed as a significant risk factor for glove perforation. And, the volume of trimmed local bone was analyzed as independent risk factor. Since the preparation of the interbody cage is essential for successful lumbar fusion surgery, the bone trimmer must pay attention to the glove perforation during this procedure.

Incidence of Glove Perforation During Hand Surgical Procedures

PURPOSE

To determine the rate of glove perforation during hand surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively examined the rate of glove perforations among 10 fellowship-trained hand surgeons at our institution during a 6 week period. Gloves were tested for perforation using a water-fill technique at the conclusion of each surgical procedure. Surgeons recorded the presence of any glove perforations.

RESULTS

Eleven perforations were identified in 10 gloves among 600 surgical procedures during the study period. The perforation rate per case was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.78% to 2.8%). Forty percent of perforations (n = 4) occurred during fracture surgery. Other holes occurred during isolated carpal tunnel release (n = 3) or combined carpal tunnel and trigger finger release (n = 3). The perforation was noticed intraoperatively in only 2 gloves. The difference in perforation rate between single- and double-gloved procedures was not significant. There were no perforations in the inner glove of surgeons who double gloved. A total of 73% of holes (8 of 11) occurred on surgeons' index finger; 75% of these were on the dominant hand. The dominant thumb, non-dominant ring and nondominant little fingers each had a single perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of glove perforation during hand surgery is low. Holes can occur even during soft tissue procedures of short duration. The dominant index finger appears to be at greatest risk for perforation. When they do occur, most often holes are not noticed by the operating surgeon. The baseline glove perforation rate is unknown.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A high level of vigilance is required to maintain sterile technique.

Visible glove perforation in total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The risk of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after glove perforation is not evident. This study was to identify risk factors for glove perforation in primary TKR (total knee replacement) and the risk of subsequent superficial SSI and PJI.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Results of visible glove perforation of both inner and outer gloves during TKR were reviewed. A case-control analysis was performed on the preoperative and operative variables to identify predictive risk factors for glove perforation. Rate of SSI and PJI was compared between perforation and non-perforation groups, including 1226 series and 183 case-control subset.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred twenty-six primary TKR from 2011 to 2014 was reviewed. Fifty-five knees had visible glove perforations. The operation perforation rate was 4.5%. Risk factors identified were body mass index (BMI) > 30, bilateral surgery, operation time >120 min and non-trainee surgeons. Superficial SSI was significantly higher in glove perforation group (9.15 vs. 0.51% and 0.55%). PJI was not significantly different (1.82% vs. 0.60% and 1.1%). The adjusted odds ratio for superficial SSI after perforation was 15.2, independent of BMI and operation time.

CONCLUSION

Visible glove perforation in TKR is associated with several risk factors. The risk of superficial SSI is higher after perforation.

A Cross-sectional Analysis of Glove Perforation in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

The number of total hip arthroplasties is ever increasing. Literature about glove perforation rates in arthroplasties in India is very scarce. The purpose of our study was to determine the incidence of glove perforation and increasing the awareness of possible glove perforations to decrease the risk of infection. We performed a prospective study in which we tested gloves worn by all scrubbed personnel. A total of 1408 gloves were collected from 42 primary total hip and 13 revision total hip arthroplasties. Incidence of glove perforation was found to be more in revision total hip arthroplasty. We found a greater outer glove perforation rate of about 38.33% as compared to 25 % inner glove perforation rate. Outer glove perforation was recognized 100% of time intraoperatively but inner glove perforation was noted only 17% of time. First assistant recorded highest rate of glove perforation.

Study of Glove Perforation during Hip Replacement Arthroplasty: Its Frequency, Location, and Timing

Objective. The aim of the study was to evaluate the location, timing, and frequency of glove perforation during hip replacement arthroplasty. Methods. Gloves worn by surgical team members in 19 primary hip replacement arthroplasties were assessed. The study was of a single gloving system. All the used gloves were collected at the end of the surgery and assessed visually and by using water inflation technique. Relevant data were collected at the time of surgery. Results. A total of one hundred and ninety-one surgical gloves were evaluated. Twenty-three glove perforations were noted in nineteen of the operations. Of these perforations 14 belonged to gloves worn by surgeon and first assistant (60.1%). Glove perforation in thumb, index finger, and palm was more common. More perforation occurred in the gloves worn in nondominant hand (52%) but was insignificant. Conclusion. Glove perforation in surgeries such as total hip arthroplasty is not uncommon. In this study of single gloving system glove perforation rate was 12.04%, whereas literature reports of glove perforation rate as low as 3.3% in elective orthopedic surgeries with double gloving system. As such emphasis should be given to wear double pair of gloves wherever this practice is uncommon.

A randomized prospective study of glove perforation in orthopaedic surgery: is a thick glove more effective?

We compared perforation rates among operative staff who were randomly assigned either thick latex surgical gloves or conventional gloves for use in performing total knee arthroplasty. A total of 1120 gloves were assessed in 70 total knee arthroplasties. Additionally, the degree of tactile sensitivity provided by the gloves was compared using a two-point discrimination (TPD) test. Perforation occurred in 27 surgeries (38.5%) and in 48 gloves (4.29%). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the operator was a risk factor for perforation rate (Odds ratio 14.448, P < .0.01) and that the type of glove was not (P = .896). In the TPD test, tactile sensitivity was lower for a thick outer glove than the conventional double glove (P < .001 for each site). Not only did thick surgical gloves lower tactile sensitivity, they also offered no superior protective effect over conventional gloves.

A prospective analysis of glove perforation in primary and revision total hip and total knee arthroplasty

Literature in regard to glove perforation rates in revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is scarce. Our purpose was to determine the incidence of perforation in revision TJA. Gloves from all scrubbed personnel were tested based on the American Society for Testing and Materials. A total of 3863 gloves were collected from 58 primary and 36 revision arthroplasty cases. Surgeons had a 3.7% outer-glove perforation rate in primary TJA compared with 8.9% in revision TJA. When both gloves were perforated, the outer-glove perforation was recognized intraoperatively 100% of the time, and the inner-glove perforation was noted only 19% of the time. The surgeon has the highest rate of glove perforation. Outer-glove perforations should prompt careful inspection of the inner glove.

Hand injuries during hand surgery: a survey of intraoperative sharp injuries of the hand among hand surgeons

An e-mail survey comprising 19 questions was directed towards members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) to investigate the prevalence and nature of intraoperative injuries to hand surgeons during hand surgery. The responses were collected, statistical analysis was done and trends were extrapolated. Two hundred members of the ASSH completed the e-mail survey. A hand surgeon in practice for greater than 10 years has a 97% chance of sustaining an intraoperative "sharps" injury. The injury is self-inflicted (88%) in most cases and the index finger (94%) of the left hand (87%) is the most likely site. The suture needle was the cause in 91% of cases. Awareness of the risks and factors associated with hand injuries during hand surgery and adopting intraoperative measures are important strategies for preventing these potentially serious and life-threatening accidents.

Glove tears during arthroscopic shoulder surgery using solid-core suture

PURPOSE

Surgeons have noticed an increased incidence of finger lacerations associated with arthroscopic knot tying with solid-core suture material. This study examines glove perforations and finger lacerations during arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

METHODS

We collected 400 surgical gloves from 50 consecutive arthroscopic shoulder repair procedures using No. 2 solid-core sutures. Two surgeons using double gloves were involved in every case, with one being responsible for tying all knots. Powder-free latex gloves were worn in all cases. Knots consisted of a sliding stitch of the surgeon's preference followed by 3 half-hitches via a knot-pusher instrument. All gloves were inspected grossly and then tested for tears with an electroconductivity meter.

RESULTS

The knot-tying surgeon had significantly more glove tears than the control (P < .01). Tears were localized to the radial side of the index finger of the glove at the distal interphalangeal joint in all cases. Of the tying surgeon's gloves, 68 (34%) were found to have tears. These included 17 inner gloves (17%) and 51 outer gloves (51%). If an inner glove was torn, the corresponding outer glove was torn in all cases. A mean of 3.96 knots were tied in each case. There was a significantly higher incidence of inner glove tears when more than 3 knots were tied (P < .03). There was no significant difference in glove tears between suture types. Finger lacerations did occur in the absence of glove tears. However, in the presence of an inner glove tear, there was a statistically significant association with a finger laceration at the corresponding level (P < .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative glove tears and subsequent finger lacerations occur with a high frequency when arthroscopic knots are tied with solid-core suture material. Risk can potentially be minimized by frequent glove changes or use of more durable, less penetrable gloves.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study addresses surgeon and patient safety during arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Glove perforation and contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty

We conducted a randomised, controlled trial to determine whether changing gloves at specified intervals can reduce the incidence of glove perforation and contamination in total hip arthroplasty. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. In the study group (25 patients), gloves were changed at 20-minute intervals or prior to cementation. In the control group (25 patients), gloves were changed prior to cementation. In addition, gloves were changed in both groups whenever there was a visible puncture. Only outer gloves were investigated.

Contamination was tested by impression of gloved fingers on blood agar and culture plates were subsequently incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The number of colonies and types of organisms were recorded. Glove perforation was assessed using the water test. The incidence of perforation and contamination was significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group. Changing gloves at regular intervals is an effective way to decrease the incidence of glove perforation and bacterial contamination during total hip arthroplasty.

Prospective study of glove perforation in obstetrical and gynecological operations: are we safe enough?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the glove perforation rate, efficacy of double gloving, effect of duration of surgery, expertise of surgeon and operative urgency on the glove perforation rate in obstetrical and gynecologic operations.

METHODS

From February to September 2002, double glove protocol was made necessary for all major obstetrical and gynecologic procedures. The operating surgeon, first and second assistant were included in the study. Gloves damage was noted (overt by inspection, occult by hydroinsufflation technique).

RESULTS

Of the 156 procedures included in study, 32 procedures were performed (all emergency operations) single-gloved because surgeons found double gloving clumsy (56%), made it difficult to tie knots due to lack of dexterity (24%), or were too tight (20%). One thousand one hundred and twenty single gloves were examined after each procedure by hydroinsufflation. The overall perforation rate was 13.6% (single versus double outer gloves, 13.8% versus l3.2%, P > 0.05). Matching perforations were found in six cases (4.6%). Thus, the protection offered by double gloves was 95.4% even if the outer gloves were perforated. Four inner gloves had preexisting perforations. Sixty unused gloves checked similarly revealed a perforation rate of 1.6%. Emergency cases had higher perforation rate compared to elective surgeries (16.6% versus 10.8%, P < 0.00 1). Surgeries lasting for more than 40 min had a higher perforation rate compared to those finished in less than or equal to 40 min (18.6% versus 7.6%, P < 0.001). The middle finger of the left hand was the most commonly involved. The surgeon, first assistant and second assistant were involved in 73.6, 23.3 and 3.2% cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Double gloving offers considerable protection against exposure to contaminants in the blood and body fluids of the patient and should be made routine, especially in developing countries where HIV, hepatitis B and C are widely prevalent. Double gloving should be made mandatory in emergency procedures, which have a higher perforation rate due to operative urgency, and gloves should be changed in operations lasting for more than 40 min to ensure integrity of barrier.

Glove punctures in orthopaedic surgery

From February 2001 to May 2001, 792 latex gloves used in 100 operations from three orthopaedic sub-specialties (paediatrics, hand and spine) were tested for puncture by a water infusion test. Sixty-nine gloves from 45 operations were punctured, giving an overall glove perforation rate of 8.7% (69/792) and an operative perforation rate of 45% (45/100). The hand operations had the lowest operative perforation rate (19.4%) while the spine operations had the highest (63.6%). The glove perforation rate increased in bony procedures (60% versus 22.5%), in procedures with major instrumentation (66% versus 18%) and in more lengthy procedures. The thumbs and the left index finger had more punctures than other parts. In addition, the glove perforation rate for single gloving was 9.6% (53/552) while that for the inner glove of double gloving was 0.8% (1/120). Based on these findings, we would like to recommend double gloving and regular glove changing in these high-risk surgeries.

The mechanical and microbiological integrity of surgical gloves

BACKGROUND

Several manufacturers supply surgical gloves that have been individually tested (IT) for leaks. Other manufacturers supply gloves in which sample gloves from each batch are tested for leaks (batch tested: BT). The latter brands may be rejected by surgeons because of presumed increased risk of wound infection and staff exposure to patient pathogens. The influence of differences between glove brands on performance in surgery has not been extensively studied. The aims of the present study were to test the mechanical and microbiological integrity of IT compared to BT gloves.

METHODS

A total of 110 unused gloves from each of an IT and a BT brand were tested for leaks, first, by observation of water-jets from water-filled gloves and second, by measuring electrical resistance between inside and outside the glove surfaces, to give a baseline measure. A total of 304 IT and 280 BT gloves were then similarly leak-tested after 98 clean surgical procedures. The hands and gloves of scrub team members were cultured postsurgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1/110 BT and 0/110 IT unused gloves contained leaks (NS, Fisher's exact test). Operative perforation rates were lower for BT compared with IT (8/280 cf. 22/304; P < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). There was no bias in types of operations or scrub team members to account for the difference. Growth of normal skin flora was found on virtually every wearer's hands post-operatively. Similar bacteria were frequently cultured from the outside of gloves at the conclusion of surgery (111/152 pairs IT cf. 122/140 pairs BT; P < 0.01, Fisher's exact test).

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that the clinical performance of BT gloves is no different to IT gloves. There was no significant difference in mechanical leak rates for unused gloves. Paradoxically, although IT gloves were more likely to show macro-perforations after surgery, the incidence of contamination on the surface of BT gloves was greater, possibly reflecting a qualitative difference in glove material. This study suggests that both types of gloves develop microporosity during use, which may allow transfer of bacteria from the surgeon's skin to the surface of the glove.

Glove punctures and postoperative skin flora of hands in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical gloves are frequently perforated during operations, including heart operations. This infection risk factor is inadequately studied.

METHODS

After preoperative hand disinfection and at the end of 116 heart operations, bacterial samples from hands of surgeons, altogether 800 samples, were taken. Glove punctures were examined with water test.

RESULTS

Surgeons changed 70 gloves because of breakage during operations. Additionally, 154 of 400 (39%) gloves had holes in postoperative testing. The breakage rate of gloves increased from 30% in operations shorter than 3 hours to 65% when operations were longer than 5 hours. High bacterial counts of the hands were also more common after prolonged operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Glove puncture rates and bacterial counts of hands increase with increasing operation time. We recommend changing of both gloves when a puncture is detected. Before donning new gloves, hands should be disinfected.

Detection of Surgical Glove Integrity

Surgical glove integrity is essential for universal precautions; glove safety is verified by the water load test (WLT). Concerns regarding glove injury have prompted newer testing methodologies, including electrical conductance testing (ECT); however, the sensitivities of these tests are not known. We compared the sensitivity of WLT and ECT in detecting glove needle-stick injury in two commonly used brands of surgical gloves. Punctures were made with hollow-bore and solid surgical needles of various configurations. The WLT failed to detect glove holes from the smallest-caliber needles and only detected the injury in 60 per cent for the largest caliber. The ECT provided a graded index of glove injury in all holes made by both solid surgical needles and hollow-bore needles. The WLT is a poor test for clinical defects in latex surgical gloves; the ECT is significantly more sensitive and provides a gauge of the cross-sectional area of the defect. Interbrand differences in self-sealing properties of surgical gloves were evidenced and may be clinically relevant after glove perforation.

Glove perforation rate in open lung surgery

OBJECTIVE

In open lung surgery the surgical access is encircled by the ribs, which should result in a high glove perforation rate compared with other surgical specialities.

METHODS

Prospectively the surgeon, first and second assistant and the scrub nurse wore double standard latex gloves during 100 thoracotomies. Parameters recorded were: procedure performed, number of perforations, localization of perforation, the seniority of the surgeon, manoeuvre performed at the moment of perforation, immediate cause of perforation, operation time, performance of rib resection during thoracotomy and time of occurrence of the first three perforations.

RESULTS

One thousand, six hundred and seventy-three gloves (902 outer, 771 inner) were tested. In 78 operations perforations occurred. There were 150 outer glove perforations (8.9%, 0-8, mean 1.23), 19 inner glove perforations (1.13%, 0-2, mean 0.19). Cutaneous blood exposure was prevented in 78% of all operations and in 87% of all perforations. The perforation rate for the surgeon, the scrub nurse, the first and the second assistant were 61.2, 40.4, 9.7 and 3.1% of all operations, respectively. Rib resection and a duration of more than 2 h resulted in a significant rise of glove perforation rate (P<0.05). The personal experience of the surgeon and the type of operation did not correlate with glove perforation. The immediate cause leading to perforation was named in only 17 cases (13.7%) and comprised contact with bone (seven), a needle stitch (seven) and a production flaw (three). Leaks were localized mostly on the first finger (18%),second finger, (39%) palm and dorsum of the hand (16%). The average occurrence of all first perforations was 38.7 min (range 3-190) after the beginning of surgery, the second after 63.2 min (range 10-195). Fifty-four first perforations (50.5%) were found during the first 30 min of the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The reported perforation rate of 78% lies in the highest range of reported perforation rates in different surgical specialities. Double gloving effectively prevented cutaneous blood exposure and thus should become a routine for the thoracic surgeon to prevent transmission of infectious diseases from the patient to the surgeon.

Comparison of cloth gloves used in orthopaedic surgery: a clinical and experimental evaluation

OBJECTIVES

(a) To compare the effectiveness of five cloth gloves for cut resistance and their ability to prevent inner latex glove perforation. (b) To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and comfort of the outer gloves when reused.

SETTING

Tertiary care level I trauma hospital and biomechanics laboratory.

METHODS

Laboratory evaluation consisting of assessing cut resistance and fabric deterioration and clinical assessment of all cloth gloves worn as a liner between two latex gloves.

RESULTS

Laboratory testing demonstrated significant differences in cut resistance, with gloves divided into three groups: most resistant (Centurion, which required over 3,000 slices or 1,300 chops to failure), resistant (MedArmor, failing at eighty-five slices or 121 chops; Paraderm, failing at thirty-eight slices or ninety-four chops; and Repel, failing at forty-six slices or seventy-five chops), and least resistant (Protek, failing at two slices and less than two chops). Clinically, 3 percent of all the inner latex gloves demonstrated a perforation, with no violation of the skin in any of the five types of cloth gloves used. Only the Protek and MedArmor cloth gloves were positively ranked for comfort.

CONCLUSION

All gloves provided equal protection with respect to inner latex glove perforation during all of the orthopaedic procedures, with comfort being the most important variable. Gloves should be selected based on comfort, because it appears that all gloves provide equal protection during surgery regardless of the material woven into the fabric.

Outer gloves in orthopaedic procedures: a polyester/stainless steel wire weave glove liner compared with latex

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of traditional double latex gloving with that of a highly cut-resistant polyester/stainless steel wire weave glove (PSSWWG) over a single latex inner glove for the prevention of perforation of the inner latex glove.

DESIGN

The primary surgeon and first assistant were involved in a prospective randomized study. Group I consisted of twenty-five procedures in which double latex gloves were used. Group II consisted of twenty-five procedures in which a PSSWWG liner was worn over an inner latex glove. All inner gloves were tested for perforations; all gloves exchanged that were presumed to have a perforation were noted and also tested. The type and length of the procedure were recorded. The dominant hand was recorded for all participants, along with their comments on the PSSWWG liner's performance.

SETTING

Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery. New York.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Major operative cases, November 1996 to February 1997.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Inner latex glove perforations.

RESULTS

With the use of PSSWWG liners, the percentage of inner gloves found with a perforation dropped from 19 percent in the double latex group to 15 percent in the PSSWWG liner group (not statistically significant, p = 0.4). Two thirds of the perforations were in the primary surgeon's gloves, located in either the index finger or thumb. Nearly 80 percent of all perforations went unrecognized in both groups. Ninety-five percent of all perforations were in gloves that had been in use for more than 120 minutes (statistically significant, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The particular cut-resistant glove studied (Sceptor) did not significantly reduce the rate of inner glove perforations. Other studies with different cut-resistant glove types and protocols have proven the liners effective. We would still recommend using outer cloth or cut-resistant type gloves when bone fragments are being manipulated or when using sharp implants or saws. At a minimum, surgical gloves should be changed every two hours.

High rates of perforation are found in endovaginal ultrasound probe covers before and after oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer

OBJECTIVES

To study perforation rates of sterile transvaginal ultrasound probe covers before and after oocyte retrieval (OPU) in an IVF-ET program.

METHODS

Transvaginal ultrasound probe sheaths from two different manufacturers were studied, Cook Innoray (Cook-Canada #TTUPS-100) and Swemed Lab (Frolunda Sweden #715). After controlled ovarian stimulation, OPU was done using the needle guide of a sterile sheathed 5-MHz transvaginal ultrasound transducer (ATL Bothell, Washington, USA). A newer designed Cook probe cover supplied by the manufacturer was also tested after the company was made aware of our initial perforation results. Following each OPU, probe covers were examined for perforations by filling them with water and checking for leaks. If perforations were found, the vaginal transducer was disinfected by soaking for 20 min in 2% gluteraldehyde (Formac). Twenty unused sterile probe covers from each manufacturer were also tested for perforations.

RESULTS

After OPU we found 10/13 (75%) old Cook, and 35/43 (81%) Swemed probe covers to be perforated (NS). Only 5/20 (25%) of the new design Cook probe covers were perforated post OPU (p = 0.000005). Analysis of unused probe covers revealed 13/20 (65%) Cook, and 5/20 (25%) Swemed probe covers to be perforated (P = 0.02). None of 10 new design unused Cook probe covers were perforated before use.

Use of double gloves to protect the surgeon from blood contact during aesthetic procedures

The potential for blood contact with nonintact skin puts operating room personnel at an increased risk of exposure to hepatitis or HIV virus. Frank needle-stick injury to the surgeon has been shown to occur once every 20-40 operations. It has been shown that blood contact exposure during aesthetic surgery occurs in 32% of the operations in which a single pair of surgical gloves is used (surgeon 39.7%, assistant 23%). The reduction of blood contact exposure during aesthetic surgical procedures by using two pairs of gloves was tested and demonstrated. Contact rates decreased by 70%. Outer-glove perforations occurred in 25.6% of the cases, while inner-glove perforations occurred in only 10% of the cases (surgeon 8.7%, assistant 3.5%). All of the inner-glove perforations occurred during procedures that lasted longer than two hours, and in no case was there an inner-glove defect without a corresponding outer-glove perforation. The nondominant index finger (33%) was the most common location. Double gloving during aesthetic procedures reduced the operating room personnel's risk of blood contact exposure by 70% when compared with single-glove use.

Risk of blood contact through surgical gloves in aesthetic procedures

Evidence of glove perforation, and therefore blood contact, was evaluated in 100 consecutive pairs of gloves used in aesthetic surgical procedures. The surgeon (38.3%) was more likely than the assistant (22.5%) to have exposure. In only 15% of these cases were they aware of the exposure. The left index finger (44%) was the most common location of perforation and 29 of the 32 holes (90.6%) were in cases that lasted more than 2 hours.

Incidence of glove perforation during episiotomy repair

A total of 416 gloves were tested for punctures after 200 episiotomy repairs. Evidence of perforation was found in 34 (8%) of the gloves used and in only half the cases did the surgeon actually realise that a perforation had occurred. The left index finger and thumb were more often perforated than other parts of the gloves. The implications of the findings, especially as regards spread of infections to surgeons, are discussed.

A clinical evaluation of glove washing and re-use in dental practice

This study has assessed the durability of four brands of latex gloves, Ansell Medical 'Medi-Grip', Regent 'Biogel D', Surgikos 'Microtouch' and the London Rubber Company 'Supreme', under conditions of repeated washing and re-use in a clinical dental setting. The microbiological effectiveness of 'Hibiscrub' as a decontaminating washing agent was examined simultaneously. Examination by an electrical test for micropunctures in 200 unused gloves of each brand revealed such defects in 6(3%) of Ansell 'Medi-Grip', 3(1.5%) of 'Biogel D', 14(7%) of Surgikos 'Microtouch' and 2(1%) of LRC 'Supreme' gloves. Following repeated clinical use, micropunctures were detected in 18% of Ansell 'Medi-Grip', 10% of 'Biogel D', 75% of Surgikos 'Microtouch' and 56% of LRC 'Supreme'. Microorganisms were isolated from the glove surfaces after 45% of the occasions on which the gloves were washed for 1 min in 'Hibiscrub' (ICI Dental). Eighty-five per cent of these isolates were environmental organisms, but oral streptococci were isolated from 8.4% of the pairs of gloves examined. The high rate of micropuncture development following repeated washing and re-use of latex gloves indicates that they cannot effectively perform their barrier function under such conditions. The microbiological data have also revealed the potential for cross-infection between patients through inadequate decontamination of glove surfaces. For operative dental surgery, the results suggest that heavier, surgical type gloves are to be preferred, and that multiple use of any glove type should be discouraged.

Glove perforation in hand surgery

A survey of glove perforation in 100 consecutive hand surgery operations was undertaken. A total of 397 pairs of gloves were tested for punctures after the operation. Evidence of perforation was found in 19% of the gloves used, and only in 12 cases did the surgeons actually realize that a perforation had occurred. With a perforation rate of 43%, the surgeons were significantly more at risk of glove perforation than the other members of the operating team.

Glove perforation in foot surgery

A total of 391 pairs of gloves were tested for punctures after 100 consecutive foot surgery operations to assess the rate, site, procedure, and maneuver during which glove puncture accidents took place. Evidence of perforation was found in 23% of the gloves used. The surgeons are significantly more at risk of glove perforation than the other members of the operating team.