Jennifer Creamer1, Kurt Davis, William Rice. 1. Department of Surgery, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, TX, USA. jennifer.creamer1@us.army.mil
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated that >10(5) organisms/mL are needed to cause a wound infection. The aim of this study was to determine if there was a difference in bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs) on sterile gloves versus clean gloves in an outpatient clinical setting. METHODS: Volunteers self-gloved with pairs of clean gloves, and culture swabs were obtained from the palmar surface. Cultures were also obtained after volunteers self-donned sterile gloves and donned sterile gloves with the assistance of a surgical technician. RESULTS: Twenty-five volunteers participated. Mean growths were as follows: clean gloves, 14.08 ± 15.45 CFUs/mL (range, 0-44 CFUs/mL); self-donned sterile gloves, 1.28 ± 4.28 CFUs/mL (range, 0-20 CFUs/mL); and technician-assisted sterile gloves, 1 positive with 8 CFUs/mL. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference in bacterial load on clean gloves versus sterile gloves (P < .001). However, when comparing the bacterial contamination on clean gloves with that required to cause an infection, it appeared that this statistically significant difference was clinically irrelevant. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated that >10(5) organisms/mL are needed to cause a wound infection. The aim of this study was to determine if there was a difference in bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs) on sterile gloves versus clean gloves in an outpatient clinical setting. METHODS: Volunteers self-gloved with pairs of clean gloves, and culture swabs were obtained from the palmar surface. Cultures were also obtained after volunteers self-donned sterile gloves and donned sterile gloves with the assistance of a surgical technician. RESULTS: Twenty-five volunteers participated. Mean growths were as follows: clean gloves, 14.08 ± 15.45 CFUs/mL (range, 0-44 CFUs/mL); self-donned sterile gloves, 1.28 ± 4.28 CFUs/mL (range, 0-20 CFUs/mL); and technician-assisted sterile gloves, 1 positive with 8 CFUs/mL. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference in bacterial load on clean gloves versus sterile gloves (P < .001). However, when comparing the bacterial contamination on clean gloves with that required to cause an infection, it appeared that this statistically significant difference was clinically irrelevant. Published by Elsevier Inc.