BACKGROUND: Incidental needlestick injury with exposure of blood pathogens has a high incidence among health care workers. Because plastic surgeons make up an important risk group for this type of accident, this study sought to evaluate the incidence of glove perforation during minor and major plastic surgery procedures. METHODS: Evidence of glove perforation was evaluated for 390 gloves after 100 consecutive minor surgical procedures and for 710 gloves after 100 consecutive major surgeries using Maffuli's test. An index based on the number of first assistant's glove perforation and the surgical time was created to compare these accidents associated with both types of procedures. RESULTS: Glove perforations were found in four gloves (1.02%) after minor surgery and 76 gloves (21.40%) after major surgery. During minor surgeries, the assistant was more likely to have exposure than the surgeon. During major surgery, the surgeon experienced more glove perforations (59.21%) than the assistant (40.79%). The most common location of perforations was the palmar face of the left hand in both groups. The surgeons did not notice these perforations at any time. The duration of the minor procedures varied from 10 to 30 min (average, 17.55 min), whereas the time of major procedures ranged from 1 to 6 h (average, 186 min). There was no statistical significant difference in the perforation's index between minor and major procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of perforation to the surgeon's glove during minor surgery is minimal. The frequency of perforation to the first assistant's glove is similar between minor and major plastic surgery procedures.
BACKGROUND: Incidental needlestick injury with exposure of blood pathogens has a high incidence among health care workers. Because plastic surgeons make up an important risk group for this type of accident, this study sought to evaluate the incidence of glove perforation during minor and major plastic surgery procedures. METHODS: Evidence of glove perforation was evaluated for 390 gloves after 100 consecutive minor surgical procedures and for 710 gloves after 100 consecutive major surgeries using Maffuli's test. An index based on the number of first assistant's glove perforation and the surgical time was created to compare these accidents associated with both types of procedures. RESULTS: Glove perforations were found in four gloves (1.02%) after minor surgery and 76 gloves (21.40%) after major surgery. During minor surgeries, the assistant was more likely to have exposure than the surgeon. During major surgery, the surgeon experienced more glove perforations (59.21%) than the assistant (40.79%). The most common location of perforations was the palmar face of the left hand in both groups. The surgeons did not notice these perforations at any time. The duration of the minor procedures varied from 10 to 30 min (average, 17.55 min), whereas the time of major procedures ranged from 1 to 6 h (average, 186 min). There was no statistical significant difference in the perforation's index between minor and major procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of perforation to the surgeon's glove during minor surgery is minimal. The frequency of perforation to the first assistant's glove is similar between minor and major plastic surgery procedures.