D A Walczak1, J Zakrzewski2, D Pawelczak3, B Grobelski4, Z Pasieka4. 1. Department of General Surgery, John Paul II Memorial Hospital in Belchatow, Poland. dr.dominikwalczak@gmail.com 2. Department of General Surgery, John Paul II Memorial Hospital in Belchatow, Poland. 3. Department of Endocrinological, General and Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Poland. 4. Department of Experimental Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical gloves provide a protective barrier against blood-born pathogens. Studies reveal glove perforation rates of up to 45%, which are often unrecognized by the surgeon or nurse. The goal of this study was to evaluate how often glove perforation occurs after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. METHODS: Gloves from the operating surgeon and the first assistant were collected after operation and tested immediately using two methods : 1. Water leak test - the approved standardized method to detect holes after filling up the gloves with 1000ml of water. 2. Electrical resistance test - method to detect gloves conductivity immersed in saline bath. RESULTS: Altogether, 376 gloves were studied. The overall perforation rate was 8%. Perforations more frequently were observed after laparoscopic than open cholecystectomy. The gloves worn by the operator were more likely to be perforated than those worn by the assistant surgeon in both types of operations. The most common site of perforation was in the index finger of the non- dominant hand. Thirty percent of gloves conducted electrical current, while 22% of them had no macroscopic evidence of perforation. CONCLUSION: Many of gloves might have microperforations that can not be detected using water leak test.
BACKGROUND: Surgical gloves provide a protective barrier against blood-born pathogens. Studies reveal glove perforation rates of up to 45%, which are often unrecognized by the surgeon or nurse. The goal of this study was to evaluate how often glove perforation occurs after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. METHODS: Gloves from the operating surgeon and the first assistant were collected after operation and tested immediately using two methods : 1. Water leak test - the approved standardized method to detect holes after filling up the gloves with 1000ml of water. 2. Electrical resistance test - method to detect gloves conductivity immersed in saline bath. RESULTS: Altogether, 376 gloves were studied. The overall perforation rate was 8%. Perforations more frequently were observed after laparoscopic than open cholecystectomy. The gloves worn by the operator were more likely to be perforated than those worn by the assistant surgeon in both types of operations. The most common site of perforation was in the index finger of the non- dominant hand. Thirty percent of gloves conducted electrical current, while 22% of them had no macroscopic evidence of perforation. CONCLUSION: Many of gloves might have microperforations that can not be detected using water leak test.