BACKGROUND: The complex environment of the operative setting provides multiple opportunities for health care workers to sustain scalpel injuries; scalpels are the second most frequent source of sharps injuries in this setting. Little evidence has been published detailing the effectiveness of proposed safety procedures and devices. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant studies. Studies were included based on the application of a predetermined protocol, an independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a consensus decision. Nineteen articles formed the evidence base for this review. RESULTS: Little high-level evidence was available. The results of studies reporting on 5 different devices/procedures were identified: the use of cut-resistant gloves/liners decreased the number of glove perforations in comparison with double latex gloves alone but lessened the wearer's dexterity and tactile sensation; the benefit derived from the use of the hands-free passing technique seemed equivocal; "sharpless surgery" was found to be feasible; a single-handed blade remover prevented at least as many injuries as a safety scalpel; and some shoe materials provided superior foot protection. CONCLUSION: The lack of available evidence highlights the need for the generation of a methodologically rigorous, clinically relevant, and statistically valid body of primary research in this area to support appropriate and effective safety interventions. Copyright (c) 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The complex environment of the operative setting provides multiple opportunities for health care workers to sustain scalpel injuries; scalpels are the second most frequent source of sharps injuries in this setting. Little evidence has been published detailing the effectiveness of proposed safety procedures and devices. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant studies. Studies were included based on the application of a predetermined protocol, an independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a consensus decision. Nineteen articles formed the evidence base for this review. RESULTS: Little high-level evidence was available. The results of studies reporting on 5 different devices/procedures were identified: the use of cut-resistant gloves/liners decreased the number of glove perforations in comparison with double latex gloves alone but lessened the wearer's dexterity and tactile sensation; the benefit derived from the use of the hands-free passing technique seemed equivocal; "sharpless surgery" was found to be feasible; a single-handed blade remover prevented at least as many injuries as a safety scalpel; and some shoe materials provided superior foot protection. CONCLUSION: The lack of available evidence highlights the need for the generation of a methodologically rigorous, clinically relevant, and statistically valid body of primary research in this area to support appropriate and effective safety interventions. Copyright (c) 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Kristin M DeGirolamo; Douglas J Courtemanche; Warren D Hill; Angie Kennedy; Erik D Skarsgard Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.089