Does wearing two pairs of gloves protect operating theatre staff from skin contamination?

Matta, Hilal; Thompson, Alastair; Rainey, J. B.

doi:10.1136/bmj.297.6648.597

Cited by 151 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar observation is made by other studies. 4,5,13,14 The procedure perforation rate in our audit was 93%. The glove perforation rate varies from 11 to 19% with different gynaecological operations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies

Manjunath

Shepherd

Barton

et al. 2008

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To audit glove perforations at laparotomies for gynaecological cancers.Setting Gynaecological oncology unit, cancer centre, London.Design Prospective audit.Sample Twenty-nine laparotomies for gynaecological cancers over 3 months.Methods Gloves used during laparotomies for gynaecological cancer were tested for perforations by the air inflation and water immersion technique. Parameters recorded were: type of procedure, localisation of perforation, type of gloves, seniority of surgeon, operation time and awareness of perforations.Main outcome measure Glove perforation rate.Results Perforations were found in gloves from 27/29 (93%) laparotomies. The perforation rate was 61/462 (13%) per glove. The perforation rate was three times higher when the duration of surgery was more than 5 hours. The perforation rate was 63% for primary surgeons, 54.5% for first assistant, 4.7% for second assistant and 40.5% for scrub nurses. Clinical fellows were at highest risk of injury (94%). Two-thirds of perforations were on the index finger or thumb. The glove on the nondominant hand had perforations in 54% of cases. In 50% of cases, the participants were not aware of the perforations. There were less inner glove perforations in double gloves compared with single gloves (5/139 versus 26/154; P = 0.0004, OR = 5.4, 95% CI 1.9-16.7). The indicator glove system failed to identify holes in 44% of cases.Conclusions Glove perforations were found in most (93%) laparotomies for gynaecological malignancies. They are most common among clinical fellows, are often unnoticed and often not detected by the indicator glove system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…4,5,13 Our findings confirm those of other investigators with two-thirds of perforations in the index finger or thumb. 4,5,14 This suggests that some perforations were due to direct manipulation of sharps with these digits and using the electrocaurtery unit. Strict use of tissue forceps would reduce such perforations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies

Manjunath

Shepherd

Barton

et al. 2008

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This high level of underreporting supports our argument that students are not prepared during their standard precaution information sessions. Wearing gloves reduces the exposure of health care workers to bloodborne viruses when they are injured, 11 but half the students did not routinely use gloves. Double gloving is practiced in Iran, when latex gloves are routinely provided, and is practiced elsewhere.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Needlestick Injuries Among Medical Students Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Needlestick Injuries Among Medical Students at a University in Iran

Askarian

Malekmakan

McLaws

et al. 2006

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A needlestick injury through one pair of gloves has been associated with a 10-100-fold reduction in the inoculum [19]. A second pair of gloves would give additional benefit [20].…”

Section: Translational Biomedicine Issn 2172-0479mentioning

confidence: 99%