Literature DB >> 11417282

Glove perforation rate in vascular surgery--a comparison between single and double gloving.

P Aarnio1, T Laine.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In surgery intact gloves act as a sterile barrier between surgeon and patient. The impermeable gloves protect the surgeon from bloodborne pathogens such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. On the other hand, the surgical wound is protected from micro-organisms from the skin of the surgeon. One objective of this study was to compare puncture rates between the double gloving color indication system and single-use gloves and the other to determine the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during the course of vascular surgical operations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study material comprised all gloves used in vascular surgical operations at Satakunta Central Hospital for a period of two months. The analysis was made by the glove type in a prospective and randomised manner. Gloves were tested immediately after the surgical procedure using the approved standardized water-leak method. With this method the glove is filled with water using a special filling tube, and the water-filled glove is then checked for two minutes to detect any holes. The gloves used in this study were either double gloves with indicator, or the standard glove used at our hospital.
RESULTS: In 73 operations altogether 200 gloves were tested, half of them were double gloves and half were single gloves. The perforation occurred in the double gloves 3 times and with single gloves 12 times. The overall perforation rate was 15 out of 200 gloves (7.5%). The detection of perforation during surgery was 60%. Most frequently the perforation was located in the second finger of the left hand, 9 out of 15 perforations.
CONCLUSION: In view of the critical importance of safety at work both transmitting the pathogens from the skin of the surgeon to the wound and transmitting the bloodborne pathogens from the patient to the surgeon, it is very important to use double gloving at least in operations where there is a high risk of glove perforation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11417282     DOI: 10.1024/0301-1526.30.2.122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vasa        ISSN: 0301-1526            Impact factor:   1.961


  6 in total

1.  Reducing surgical site infections: a review.

Authors:  David E Reichman; James A Greenberg
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009

2.  A comparison of the effect of different surgical gloves on objective measurement of fingertip cutaneous sensibility.

Authors:  A Bucknor; A Karthikesalingam; S R Markar; P J Holt; I Jones; T G Allen-Mersh
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Evaluation of two methods of determining the efficacies of two alcohol-based hand rubs for surgical hand antisepsis.

Authors:  Günter Kampf; Christiane Ostermeyer; Peter Heeg; Daryl Paulson
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 4.  Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection.

Authors:  J Tanner; H Parkinson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-07-19

5.  Do your surgical glove characteristics and wearing habits affect your tactile sensibility?

Authors:  Philipp Moog; Manuela Schulz; Julia Betzl; Daniel Schmauss; Jörn A Lohmeyer; Hans-Günther Machens; Kai Megerle; Holger C Erne
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2020-08-08

6.  Perforation of Surgical Gloves during Lower Extremity Fracture Surgery and Hip Joint Replacement Surgery.

Authors:  Sang Wook Lee; Myung-Rae Cho; Ho-Hyoung Lee; Won-Kee Choi; Joo-Hwan Lee
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2015-03-31
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.