A Rhoton-Vlasak1, P Duff. 1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess prospectively the frequency of glove injury associated with insertion of the fetal scalp electrode and subsequent examination of the cervix with the electrode in place. METHODS: Over a 7-month period, sterile gloves were collected after use for insertion of the fetal scalp electrode or cervical examination with the electrode in place. Attendants indicated their level of training, time, date and purpose of glove use, and cervical examination. They also noted whether they were aware of a glove perforation or observed blood, amniotic fluid, or genital tract secretions on their hand. Glove patency was assessed by filling the glove with water to 1.5-2.0 times its normal volume and observing for leaks. One hundred unused gloves were tested for patency and served as controls. RESULTS: Five hundred one gloves were evaluated, of which 13 (2.6%, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1-4%) had perforations. Seven of 277 gloves (2.5%) used only for examinations had perforations, compared with six of 244 (2.5%) used only for insertion of the electrode. Two percent (95% CI 0-5%) of the unused control gloves had perforations. These observed differences were not statistically significant. Nineteen attendants (3.8%, 95% CI 2.1-5.5%) noted blood or genital tract secretions on their hand after insertion of the electrode (N = 4) or subsequent cervical examination (N = 15). Only one point of contract resulted from a glove perforation; the other 18 were on the wrist and apparently resulted from leakage of fluid around the open cuff of the glove. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of glove perforation during insertion of the fetal scalp electrode or subsequent cervical examination is low if proper technique is observed. Blood or fluid contact is more likely to result from leakage of fluid around the open cuff of the glove during a vaginal examination.
OBJECTIVE: To assess prospectively the frequency of glove injury associated with insertion of the fetal scalp electrode and subsequent examination of the cervix with the electrode in place. METHODS: Over a 7-month period, sterile gloves were collected after use for insertion of the fetal scalp electrode or cervical examination with the electrode in place. Attendants indicated their level of training, time, date and purpose of glove use, and cervical examination. They also noted whether they were aware of a glove perforation or observed blood, amniotic fluid, or genital tract secretions on their hand. Glove patency was assessed by filling the glove with water to 1.5-2.0 times its normal volume and observing for leaks. One hundred unused gloves were tested for patency and served as controls. RESULTS: Five hundred one gloves were evaluated, of which 13 (2.6%, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1-4%) had perforations. Seven of 277 gloves (2.5%) used only for examinations had perforations, compared with six of 244 (2.5%) used only for insertion of the electrode. Two percent (95% CI 0-5%) of the unused control gloves had perforations. These observed differences were not statistically significant. Nineteen attendants (3.8%, 95% CI 2.1-5.5%) noted blood or genital tract secretions on their hand after insertion of the electrode (N = 4) or subsequent cervical examination (N = 15). Only one point of contract resulted from a glove perforation; the other 18 were on the wrist and apparently resulted from leakage of fluid around the open cuff of the glove. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of glove perforation during insertion of the fetal scalp electrode or subsequent cervical examination is low if proper technique is observed. Blood or fluid contact is more likely to result from leakage of fluid around the open cuff of the glove during a vaginal examination.