Yvonne A Elce1, Sheila Laverty2, Eduardo Almeida da Silveira2, Perrine Piat3, Pierre Trencart3, Pavlina Ruzickova2, Richard J M Reardon4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency of undetected perforations in surgical gloves during equine surgery and to identify risk factors associated with occurrence. STUDY
DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Surgical gloves-292 pairs.
METHODS: Water leak tests were performed on gloves after equine surgery to detect perforations. Fifty pairs of unused gloves were also tested. Potential risk factors were recorded. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between putative risk factors and perforation.
RESULTS: No perforations were detected in the unused gloves. Of 292 pairs of used gloves tested, 80 (27%) had at least one glove perforation per pair. The frequency of perforations was not different between surgery diplomates and residents (P=.69). The length and type of surgery were significantly associated with the likelihood of undetected glove perforation with surgeries longer than 60 minutes approximately 2.5 times more likely to result in glove perforation (P=.005). Surgery classified as soft tissue, orthopedic or exploratory celiotomy was 3 times more likely to result in glove perforation than minimally invasive surgery. The perforations occurred significantly more frequently in the nondominant hand (19%) than the dominant hand (11%) (P=.009).
CONCLUSION: There is a high occurrence of undetected glove perforation in equine surgery. Precautions can be suggested based on this study although further investigation is required to assess whether glove perforations are associated with surgical site infections. © Copyright 2016 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency of undetected perforations in surgical gloves during equine surgery and to identify risk factors associated with occurrence. STUDY
DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Surgical gloves-292 pairs.
METHODS: Water leak tests were performed on gloves after equine surgery to detect perforations. Fifty pairs of unused gloves were also tested. Potential risk factors were recorded. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between putative risk factors and perforation.
RESULTS: No perforations were detected in the unused gloves. Of 292 pairs of used gloves tested, 80 (27%) had at least one glove perforation per pair. The frequency of perforations was not different between surgery diplomates and residents (P=.69). The length and type of surgery were significantly associated with the likelihood of undetected glove perforation with surgeries longer than 60 minutes approximately 2.5 times more likely to result in glove perforation (P=.005). Surgery classified as soft tissue, orthopedic or exploratory celiotomy was 3 times more likely to result in glove perforation than minimally invasive surgery. The perforations occurred significantly more frequently in the nondominant hand (19%) than the dominant hand (11%) (P=.009).
CONCLUSION: There is a high occurrence of undetected glove perforation in equine surgery. Precautions can be suggested based on this study although further investigation is required to assess whether glove perforations are associated with surgical site infections. © Copyright 2016 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2016
PMID： 27684500 DOI： 10.1111/vsu.12562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Surg ISSN： 0161-3499 Impact factor: 1.495