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.
RCT Entities:
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.