Double gloving and a system for identifying glove perforations in maxillofacial trauma surgery

Comparison of Efficacy of Transalveolar Screws and Conventional Dental Wiring Using Erich Arch Bar for Maxillomandibular Fixation in Mandibular Fractures

Introduction

Maxillomandibular fixation is required in nearly all cases of facial fractures which can be achieved by conventional dental wiring techniques or newer methods using transalveolar screws.

Material and Methods

A prospective randomized clinical study divided into two groups with thirty adult patients each with mandibular fractures was undertaken comparing the Maxillomandibular fixation technique using transalveolar screws and Erichs arch bar. Total time taken, rate of glove perforation, intraoperative and postoperative complications were noted in both the groups.

Results

The time taken for maxillomandibular fixation in minutes and rate of glove perforation was found to be statistically significantly less for transalveolar group compared to arch bar group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference found in the oral hygiene and gingival status using the Glass index and Gingival index. The rate of screw breakage (04.67%), wire breakage (05.12%), non-vitality due to iatrogenic dental damage (01.66%), soft tissue injury and tooth loss were some of the noted complications during the study.

Conclusion

We found that transalveolar group offered advantages like less time taken with a definite decreased risk of percutaneous injury, while the iatrogenic complications like dental damage can be reduced by taking adequate precautions.

Dental occlusion ties: A rapid, safe, and non-invasive maxillo-mandibular fixation technology

Objectives

For decades, Erich arch bars have been a standard in establishing maxillo‐mandibular fixation (MMF). While reliable, the approach risks sharps injury, consumes operating room time, and inflicts gingival trauma. Newer technologies including screw‐based techniques and “hybrid” techniques have improved MMF by reducing sharps injuries and operating room time, but risk injury to tooth roots, nerves, and gingiva. This study aims to establish the application, strengths, and limitations of dental occlusion ties as a novel alternative in maxillo‐mandibular fixation.

Study Design

Prospective, non‐blinded, human feasibility clinical trial.

Materials and Methods

An iterative prototyping process was used to invent dental occlusion ties (brand name: Minne Ties). Development included 3D printing, cadaver prototype testing, human apical embrasure measurement, and ultimately non‐significant risk human clinical trial testing. In the IRB‐approved feasibility clinical trial, the devices were applied to mandible and maxilla fracture candidates with fractures amenable to intra‐operative MMF with open reduction with internal fixation. The ties were removed prior to extubation. Pre‐teens, comminuted fracture patients, and patients requiring post‐operative MMF were excluded.

Results

Manufactured, sterile prototypes secured MMF successfully in management of unilateral and bilateral mandible and maxilla fractures. All patients reported correction of pre‐operative malocclusion. Application times were typically 12–15 minutes for a single surgeon to achieve MMF. Patients incurred negligible gingival trauma from the technology as the ties require no tissue penetration for application.

Conclusions

Dental occlusion ties offer a non‐invasive solution featuring operating room efficiency, minimized sharps risk, and less bony and soft tissue trauma than current commercialized solutions.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic, IV

Treatment of Mandibular Fractures Using Intermaxillary Fixation and Vacuum Forming Splints: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

The study was done to compare the clinical efficacy of vacuum formed splints and arch bar in treating minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

METHOD

Forty patients were included in two groups. Group 1 was treated with custom made splints and group 2 with conventional arch bar. Patients were recalled on 3rd, 7th, 14th day and on the day of removal of the appliance. Periodontal status, stability of appliance and chair side time were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean chair side time taken by vacuum formed splint was 18.05 min and conventional arch bar fixation was 68.25 min. 8.3 % of patients with vacuum formed splints had poor oral hygiene in comparison with 25 % of patients with conventional arch bar. 70 % of patients with vacuum formed splints and 60 % of the patients with conventional arch bars were comfortable in mastication during treatment.

CONCLUSION

Vacuum formed splints has better advantages over arch bar with respect to chair side time, periodontal health, patient's compliance of maintaining oral hygiene, mastication and speech. Vacuum formed splints avoid needle stick injuries. So, they can be used for intermaxillary fixation in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

Evaluation of two different methods of arch bar application: a comparative prospective study

PURPOSE

To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of a pencil type wire twister and the normal wire twister in terms of various parameters during arch bars application.

METHOD

The study involved residents of the department enrolled in MDS course. Two study groups of 60 patients each were made by randomly selecting the patients from the outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery who required arch bar application. Group A included the patients who underwent upper and lower arch bar application with the use of a pencil type twister and group B included patients who underwent arch bar application with a normal wire twister. All respondents were given a questionnaire after the completion of procedure involving the use of medical sharps. The paired samples t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULT

Among group A, mean glove perforations, actual wire stick injuries, mean time taken to complete the procedure, mean wire breakage during the procedure was less than in group B. Comfort level of patients and Ease of operator while performing the procedure was more in group A than in group B. Frictional abrasion of the finger was not associated with the use of pencil type twister. Overall rating of the procedure was more in group A than group B.

CONCLUSION

The use of pencil type wire twister outweighs normal wire twister in various ways. It increases the overall efficacy of the operator during the procedure.

Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.We found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).We found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.There was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.There was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.

Comparison of intermaxillary fixation screw versus eyelet interdental wiring for intermaxillary fixation in minimally displaced mandibular fracture: a randomized clinical study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present randomized study was to evaluate the efficacy of intermaxillary fixation screw (IMFS) versus eyelet interdental wiring for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in minimally displaced mandibular fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients with a minimally displaced mandibular fracture were enrolled, with 25 patients randomly selected for each group. In group I (study group, n = 25), the patients were treated using IMFS, and in group II (control group, n = 25), they received eyelet interdental wiring. Both techniques were assessed for the following parameters: time required for placement and removal of each type of IMF technique, time required for placement of IMF wires, postoperative occlusion, stability of the IMF wire, local anesthesia requirement during removal of each fixation type, oral hygiene status, glove perforation rate, and complications associated with both techniques. The collected data were analyzed using Student's unpaired t test or χ2 test. P < .05 was considered significant and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software, version 10, was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The average time required for placement in groups I and II was 17.56 and 35.08 minutes, respectively (P = .000). The time required for placement of the IMF wire in group I was 2.1 minutes and in group II was 6 minutes. The oral hygiene status was assessed, and the mean plaque index score for groups I and II was 1.44 and 2.12, respectively (P = .00). The glove perforation rate was much less in group I than in group II. Finally, the most common complication in both groups was mucosal growth.

CONCLUSIONS

The results established the supremacy of IMFS compared with eyelet interdental wiring. Thus, we have concluded that IMFS, in the present scenario, is a safe and time-saving technique. IMFS is a cost-effective, straightforward, and viable alternative to cumbersome eyelet interdental and other wiring techniques for providing IMF, with satisfactory occlusion during closed reduction or intraoperative open reduction internal fixation of fractures. In addition, oral hygiene can be maintained, and the glove perforation rate was very low using IMFS. The relatively small sample size and limited follow-up period were the study limitations.

Risk of surgical glove perforation in oral and maxillofacial surgery

Oral and maxillofacial surgery, which involves several sharp instruments and fixation materials, is consistently at a high risk for cross-contamination due to perforated gloves, but it is unclear how often such perforations occur. This study aimed to address this issue. The frequency of the perforation of surgical gloves (n=1436) in 150 oral and maxillofacial surgeries including orthognathic surgery (n=45) was assessed by the hydroinsufflation technique. Orthognathic surgery had the highest perforation rate in at least 1 glove in 1 operation (91.1%), followed by cleft lip and palate surgery (55.0%), excision of oral soft tumour (54.5%) and dental implantation (50.0%). The perforation rate in scrub nurses was 63.4%, followed by 44.4% in surgeons and first assistants, and 16.3% in second assistants. The odds ratio for the perforation rate in orthognathic surgery versus other surgeries was 16.0 (95% confidence interval: 5.3-48.0). The protection rate offered by double gloving in orthognathic surgery was 95.2%. These results suggest that, regardless of the surgical duration and blood loss in all fields of surgery, orthognathic surgery must be categorized in the highest risk group for glove perforation, following gynaecological and open lung surgery, due to the involvement of sharp objects.

Self Tapping Screws v/s Erich Arch Bar for Inter Maxillary Fixation: A Comparative Clinical Study in the Treatment of Mandibular Fractures

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Numerous methods have been described for achievement of Intermaxillary fixation in the treatment of fractures of facial skeleton. Conventional methods like Erich arch bars and eyelet wires are currently most common methods for achieving intermaxillary fixation (IMF), but they have their own disadvantages. Since 1989, IMF using intraoral self tapping IMF screws has been introduced for treatment of mandibular fractures. The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy, advantages, disadvantages indications and potential complications associated with Erich archbar v/s self tapping IMF screws in the management of mandibular fractures.

METHODS

Twenty patients with mandibular fractures, reporting to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Oxford Dental College, Bangalore were evaluated, to compare the efficacy of two techniques. The parameters considered were, time taken, perforations in the gloves, patient acceptance, oral hygiene, iatrogenic dental injuries, and needle stick injuries during IMF with Erich arch Bar and self tapping IMF screws.

RESULTS

The mean time taken for IMF was 8.52 ± 2.7 min with screws as compared to 100 min with Erich arch bars. Mean number of perforations were significantly more in Group II. Oral hygiene status was good in 90% and fair in 10% of Group I and 100% fair in Group II patients.

CONCLUSION

Use of self tapping IMF screws for intermaxillary fixation is a valid alternative to conventional Erich arch bars in the treatment of mandibular fractures. Iatrogenic injury to dental roots is the most important problem to this procedure, which can be minimized by careful radiographic evaluation and treatment planning.

Embrasure wires for intraoperative maxillomandibular fixation are rapid and effective

PURPOSE

The management of some mandible fractures requires maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) intraoperatively but not postoperatively. Intraoperative MMF with arch bars has significant disadvantages, including duration of application and risk of disease transmission. Some surgeons have sought to minimize these disadvantages, improve efficiency, and decrease cost by omitting formal MMF altogether and manually stabilizing the occlusion. Embrasure wires are a method of intraoperative MMF with significant potential advantages. The purpose of this investigation was to compare embrasure wires with Erich arch bars (Karl Leibinger Co, Mulheim, Germany) for intraoperative stabilization of mandible fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective case review comprised 50 patients with a primary diagnosis of mandible fracture requiring open reduction-internal fixation with intraoperative MMF. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: intraoperative MMF using embrasure wires (group A) or intraoperative MMF using arch bars (group B). In each group the time required to place the MMF was recorded in whole minutes. The success or failure of the technique to maintain stable MMF throughout the procedure was assessed.

RESULTS

Intraoperative MMF was used with embrasure wires in 27 of 50 patients (54%) and with arch bars in 23 of 50 (46%). The mean time required for placement of embrasure wire MMF (2.51 minutes) was significantly (P < .001) less than the mean time required for placement of arch bar MMF (25.47 minutes). The quality of MMF was judged to be stable for the duration of fixation in 24 of 27 patients (89%) in the embrasure wire MMF group and 22 of the 23 patients (96%) in the arch bar group. This difference was not significant (P = .61).

CONCLUSION

Embrasure wires can be placed in significantly less time than arch bars, and they provide a reliable form of intraoperative MMF during mandible fracture repair. For intraoperative MMF, embrasure wires offer significant advantages compared with arch bars by reducing application time. In addition, embrasure wires may reduce the risk of disease transmission by decreasing the number of wires required for MMF.

Infection control guidelines for prevention of health care-associated transmission of hepatitis B and C viruses

Viral hepatitis was first identified as an occupational hazard for health care workers more than 60 years ago. For the past few decades, hepatitis B has been one of the most significant occupational infectious risks for health care providers. With the increasing prevalence of hepatitis C infections around the world, occupational transmission of this flavivirus from infected patients to their providers has also become a significant concern. Several factors influence the risk for occupational blood-borne hepatitis infection among health care providers, among them: the prevalence of infection among the population served, the infection status of the patients to whom workers are exposed (ie, the source patient's circulating viral burden), the types and frequencies of parenteral and mucosal exposures to blood and blood-containing body fluids, and whether the patient or provider has been immunized with the hepatitis B vaccine. This article reviews patient-to-provider, patient-to-patient, and provider-to-patient transmission of hepatitis B and C in the health care setting. Current prevention strategies, precautions, and guidelines are discussed.

Comparative analysis of 2 techniques of double-gloving protection during arch bar placement for intermaxillary fixation

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to comparatively evaluate, in a prospective and randomized manner, 2 techniques for providing double-gloving protection during arch bar placement for intermaxillary fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 42 consecutive patients in whom application of an Erich bar was indicated for intermaxillary fixation were equally divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 2 sterile surgical gloves were used; in group 2, a nonsterile disposable inner glove was used under a sterile surgical glove. Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and binomial statistical tests were used to analyze the findings.

RESULTS

A total of 103 perforations were found in the outer gloves (47 in group 1 and 56 in group 2), along with 5 perforations in inner gloves in both groups (alpha = .01). No significant statistical difference was found between groups in terms of inner glove perforations (alpha = .05). The nondominant hand presented with 70.9% of the perforations, statistically significant to 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both double-gloving techniques were found to provide effective clinician protection. The use of a nonsterile disposable glove under the surgical glove is possible for less-invasive procedures, offering the same safety as using 2 sterile surgical gloves while decreasing operational costs. This method does not eliminate the need to change gloves when a perforation is suspected or noted during the surgery, however.

Surgical glove practice: the evidence

Surgical gloves are worn to protect both the patient and the surgical team from transferred infections. Wearing two pairs of gloves, perforation indicator systems, glove liners, knitted gloves and triple gloving are said to offer additional protection. This paper presents the main findings from a Cochrane systematic review of 30 trials examining surgical gloving practice.

Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection

BACKGROUND

The invasive nature of surgery, with its increased exposure to blood, means that during surgery there is a high risk of transfer of pathogens. Pathogens can be transferred through contact between surgical patients and the surgical team, resulting in post-operative or blood borne infections in patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. This risk can be reduced by implementing protective barriers such as wearing surgical gloves. Wearing two pairs of surgical gloves, triple gloves, glove liners or cloth outer gloves, as opposed to one pair, is considered to provide an additional barrier and further reduce the risk of contamination.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine if additional glove protection reduces the number of surgical site or blood borne infections in patients or the surgical team. The secondary objective was to determine if additional glove protection reduces the number of perforations to the innermost pair of surgical gloves. The innermost gloves (next to skin) compared with the outermost gloves are considered to be the last barrier between the patient and the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (January 2006), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005). We also contacted glove manufacturing companies and professional organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving: single gloving, double gloving, triple gloving, glove liners, knitted outer gloves, steel weave outer gloves and perforation indicator systems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Data was extracted by one author and cross checked for accuracy by the second author.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials were found which addressed the primary outcome, namely, surgical site infections in patients. Both trials reported no infections. Thirty one randomised controlled trials measuring glove perforations were identified and included in the review. Fourteen trials of double gloving (wearing two pairs of surgical latex gloves) were pooled and showed that there were significantly more perforations to the single glove than the innermost of the double gloves (OR 4.10, 95% CI 3.30 to 5.09). Eight trials of indicator gloves (coloured latex gloves worn underneath latex gloves to more rapidly alert the team to perforations) showed that significantly fewer perforations were detected with single gloves compared with indicator gloves (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16) or with standard double glove compared with indicator gloves (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17). Two trials of glove liners (a glove knitted with cloth or polymers worn between two pairs of latex gloves)(OR 26.36, 95% CI 7.91 to 87.82), three trials of knitted gloves (knitted glove worn on top of latex surgical gloves)(OR 5.76, 95% CI 3.25 to 10.20) and one trial of triple gloving (three pairs of latex surgical gloves)(OR 69.41, 95% CI 3.89 to 1239.18) all compared with standard double gloves, showed there were significantly more perforations to the innermost glove of a standard double glove in all comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no direct evidence that additional glove protection worn by the surgical team reduces surgical site infections in patients, however the review has insufficient power for this outcome. The addition of a second pair of surgical gloves significantly reduces perforations to innermost gloves. Triple gloving, knitted outer gloves and glove liners also significantly reduce perforations to the innermost glove. Perforation indicator systems results in significantly more innermost glove perforations being detected during surgery.

Surgical gloves: perforation and protection

The risk of surgical glove perforation is affected by a number of factors including the type of surgery, length of operative procedure, hand dominance and role of the glove wearer. This article provides an overview of each of these factors and discusses protective gloving measures taken to reduce perforations based on the findings of the Cochrane review.

Steroid-induced psychosis complicating orthognathic surgery: A case report

Psychosis is an uncommon but well-recognised complication of short-term corticosteroid administration. We report a case of steroid-induced psychosis subsequent to a bimaxillary osteotomy.

Glove perforations in open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery: the feasibility of double gloving

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

According to the traditional view, the glove protects the patient from the bacterial growth of the surgeons' hands and doing so prevents infections. Today, with growing incidences of HIV and Hepatitis B and C, surgical gloves are also important as protection for the surgeon. We compared the safety of double indicator gloves to standard single surgical gloves by investigating how often surgical gloves are punctured in laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal surgery.

STUDY

As study material we gathered all gloves that had been used in gastrointestinal surgery in Satakunta Central Hospital during two months. 814 gloves from 274 operations were tested by using standardized water filling test method.

RESULTS

In open surgery 67 gloves out of 694 had been punctured (9.6 percent). Puncture occurred in 22.5 percent of operations (53 out of 236). During open surgery 24 holes out of 35 were undetected with single gloves (69 percent). With double indicator gloves, only 3 out of 31 holes were unnoticed (10 percent). Long duration of operation increased the risk of puncture. In laparoscopic operations 4 gloves out of 120 had been perforated (3.3 percent).

CONCLUSION

Double surgical gloves give markedly better protection in surgery. This is important especially in high risk operations.

Utilisation of personal protective equipment in dental practice

OBJECTIVE

To investigate personal protective equipment such as gloves, mask and protective eye wear used in dental practice in Turkey.

DESIGN

An e-mail based self-report questionnaire was sent to dentists during 2002.

PARTICIPANTS

Dentists in Turkey.

RESULTS

574 dentists aged 22-69 years responded. Thirty-six questionnaires were not included in the results. The results of the present study indicate that a high proportion of younger dentist respondents are using personal protective equipment in accordance with guidelines. More dentists use personal protective equipment for high-risk patients. The percentage of dentists using protective eyewear was low considering the general recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The present study indicated that gloves and masks are used by a high proportion of the respondents. Further education may be appropriate in protective eyewear.

The changing face of hand protection

Perioperative nurses are empowered to act as patient advocates. As such, it is their responsibility to critically evaluate all products used in the surgical environment, including gloves. A basic understanding of the history of surgical gloves, health issues associated with their use, glove materials, and the essential properties of hand scrubs can help perioperative nurses choose appropriate products. This article explores these issues so that nurses and other health care workers can develop a framework for making informed decisions based on clinical reasoning.

Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection

BACKGROUND

The invasive nature of surgery, with its increased exposure to blood, means that during surgery there is a high risk of transfer of pathogens. Pathogens can be transferred through contact between surgical patients and the surgical team, resulting in post-operative or blood borne infections in patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. This risk can be reduced by implementing protective barriers such as wearing surgical gloves. Wearing two pairs of surgical gloves, as opposed to one pair, is considered to provide an additional barrier and further reduce the risk of contamination.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine if double gloving (wearing two pairs of gloves), rather than single gloving, reduces the number of post-operative or blood borne infections in surgical patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. The secondary objective of this review was to determine if double gloving, rather than single gloving, reduces the number of perforations to the innermost pair of surgical gloves. The innermost gloves (next to skin) compared with the outermost gloves are considered to be the last barrier between the patient and the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Glove manufacturing companies and professional organisations were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving: single gloving, double gloving, glove liners or coloured puncture indicator systems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both reviewers independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Trials to be included were cross checked and authenticated by both reviewers. Data was extracted by one reviewer and cross checked for accuracy by the second reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials were found which addressed the primary outcome. A total of 18 randomised controlled trials which measured glove perforations were identified and included in the review. DOUBLE GLOVING (wearing two pairs of latex gloves). Nine trials compared single latex gloves versus double latex gloves. These found no difference in the number of perforations between the single latex gloves and the outermost pair of the double latex gloves, but the number of perforations to the double latex-innermost glove was significantly reduced when two pairs of latex gloves were worn. ORTHOPAEDIC GLOVES (thicker than standard latex gloves). One trial compared single latex orthopaedic gloves with double latex gloves. This showed there was no difference in the number of perforations to the innermost gloves when wearing double latex gloves compared with a single pair of latex orthopaedic gloves. INDICATOR GLOVES (coloured latex gloves worn underneath latex gloves). Three trials compared double latex gloves versus double latex indicator gloves. These trials showed similar numbers of perforations to both the innermost and the outermost gloves for both gloving groups. Perforations to the outermost gloves were detected more easily when double latex indicator gloves were worn. Wearing double latex indicator gloves did not increase the detection of perforations to the innermost gloves. GLOVE LINERS (an insert worn between two pairs of latex gloves). Two trials compared double latex gloves versus double latex gloves with liners. These trials showed a significant reduction in the number of perforations to the innermost glove when a glove liner was worn between two pairs of latex gloves. CLOTH GLOVES (cloth gloves worn on top of latex gloves). Two trials compared double latex gloves versus latex inner with cloth outer gloves. These trials showed that wearing a cloth outer glove significantly reduced the number of perforations to the innermost latex glove. STEEL WEAVE GLOVES (steel weave gloves worn on top of latex gloves). One trial compared double latex gloves versus latex inner with steel weave outer gloves. This trial showed no reduction in the number of perforations to the innermost glove when wearing a steel weave outer glove.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Wearing two pairs of latex gloves significantly reduces the number of perforations to the innermost glove. This evidence comes from trials undertaken in 'low risk' surgical specialties, that is specialties which did not include orthopaedic joint surgery. Wearing two pairs of latex gloves does not cause the glove wearer to sustain more perforations to their outermost glove. Wearing double latex indicator gloves enables the glove wearer to detect perforations to the outermost glove more easily than when wearing double latex gloves. However wearing a double latex indicator system will not assist with the detection of perforations to the innermost glove, nor reduce the number of perforations to either the outermost or the innermost glove. Wearing a glove liner between two pairs of latex gloves to undertake joint replacement surgery significantly reduces the number of perforations to the innermost glove compared with double latex gloves only. Wearing cloth outer gloves to undertake joint replacement surgery significantly reduces the number of perforations to the innermost glove compared with wearing double latex gloves. Wearing steel weave outer gloves to undertake joint replacement surgery does not reduce the number of perforations to innermost gloves compared with double latex gloves.

Biogel Reveal: a puncture indication system from Regent Medical

Gloves provide an essential barrier against contamination and are an important item of personal protective equipment. Gloves used in clinical practice do leak although there is no direct evidence that such leaks result in transmission of infection. Double-gloving is recommended in theatre as a means of reducing hand injury during surgical procedures. Biogel Reveal is a double-glove puncture indication system that shows punctures as a visible green colour when damaged.