Literature DB >> 2327922

Efficacy of double versus single gloving in protecting the operating team.

J S Gani1, P F Anseline, R L Bissett.   

Abstract

Double-glove perforation rates and perforation rates in standard single-gloved operating teams were compared, in order to determine whether double gloving provides additional protection for the operating team. Patients were randomized to undergo surgery with a double-gloved or single-gloved operating team. All gloves worn during the operation were tested for perforations by water-filling and individual digital distension; 115 single-gloved operations and 103 double-gloved operations were performed. There were 841 individual operating team members 'at risk'. In the single-glove group, 20.8% of individuals had perforations, but only 2.5% had perforations in both inner and outer gloves (dual perforation) in the double-glove group (P less than 0.0001). The surgeon was most at risk of glove perforation (34.7% of cases in the single-glove group, 3.8% dual perforation in the double-glove group). Longer operations were associated with increased risk of glove perforation. Double-gloving significantly reduces the risk of skin contamination by blood and body fluids and is recommended for all high risk cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2327922

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Surg        ISSN: 0004-8682


  8 in total

1.  How evidence-based are CAGS surgeons really?

Authors:  Chris de Gara
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Risk of blood contact through surgical gloves in aesthetic procedures.

Authors:  R J Greco; M Wheatley; P McKenna
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  Use of double gloves to protect the surgeon from blood contact during aesthetic procedures.

Authors:  R J Greco; J R Garza
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1995 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.326

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

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

5.  Surgeons' concern and practices of protection against bloodborne pathogens.

Authors:  J M Patterson; C B Novak; S E Mackinnon; G A Patterson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Incidence and patterns of surgical glove perforations: experience from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Authors:  Abebe Bekele; Nardos Makonnen; Lidya Tesfaye; Mulat Taye
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Perforation rates in double latex gloves and protective effects of outer work gloves in a postmortem examination room: A STROBE-compliant study.

Authors:  Nozomi Idota; Mami Nakamura; Yoshihisa Akasaka; Hajime Tsuboi; Risa Bando; Hiroshi Ikegaya
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018.

Authors:  Hiroki Ohge; Toshihiko Mayumi; Seiji Haji; Yuichi Kitagawa; Masahiro Kobayashi; Motomu Kobayashi; Toru Mizuguchi; Yasuhiko Mohri; Fumie Sakamoto; Junzo Shimizu; Katsunori Suzuki; Motoi Uchino; Chizuru Yamashita; Masahiro Yoshida; Koichi Hirata; Yoshinobu Sumiyama; Shinya Kusachi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 2.549

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.