Sterile versus non-sterile glove use and aseptic technique

Flores, Ashley

doi:10.7748/ns.23.6.35.s46

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By definition, this is no longer “aseptic technique”, a key principle of which is that any part of an instrument if touched directly or indirectly could result in infection [57]. Sterile gloves are required for aseptic procedures, while non-sterile gloves suffice for clean procedures [57]. A “no-touch” technique without gloves at all was advocated for cataract surgery over 50 years ago, but has fallen out of favor [58].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection: a comprehensive review

Merani

Hunyor

2015

Int J Retin Vitr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this review is to report and summarize previously reported studies and assess many of the individual steps of the intravitreal injection procedure’s possible effect on the prevention of endophthalmitis. The pooled endophthalmitis rate from 20 large retrospective case series of anti-VEGF injections was 144/510,396 (0.028%; 1/3,544). Injections may be performed in an office-based location or in an operating room (OR) and low rates of endophthalmitis can be achieved in either location with careful attention to asepsis. Pre- or post-injection topical antibiotics have not been shown to be effective, and could select for more virulent microorganisms. Povidone-iodine prior to injection is accepted as the gold-standard antiseptic agent, but aqueous chlorhexidine may be an alternative. Antisepsis before and after gel or subconjunctival anesthetic is suggested. The preponderance of Streptococcal infections after intravitreal injection is discussed, including the possible role of aerosolization, which can be minimized by using face masks or maintaining silence. As with other invasive procedures in medicine, the use of sterile gloves, following adequate hand antisepsis, may be considered. Control of the eyelashes and lid margin is required to avoid contamination of the needle, but this can be achieved with or without a speculum. Techniques to minimize vitreous reflux have not been shown to reduce the risk of endophthalmitis. Same day bilateral injections should be performed as two separate procedures, preferably using drug from different lots, especially when using compounded drugs.

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection: a comprehensive review

Merani

Hunyor

2015

Int J Retin Vitr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 Aseptic technique and standard infection control protocols are practiced in infection prevention. Although the use of sterile gloves for minor and major surgical repairs is the current standard of care, use of non-sterile and clean gloves had been shown not to increase the risk of infection in some procedures 9,10 In the study by Bodiwala, it was shown that infection rate was not increased in without-gloves group compared to sterile gloves group after repair of simple lacerations. 11 In a non-randomised study of 50 lacerations, infection rates of wounds repaired with non-sterile versus sterile gloves showed no difference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Pilot Study on the Repair of Contaminated Traumatic Wounds in the Emergency Department Using Sterile versus Non-Sterile Gloves

Ghafouri

Zoofaghari

Kasnavieh

et al. 2014

Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although the use of sterile gloves for minor and major surgical repairs is the current standard of care, use of non-sterile and clean gloves has been shown to be safe in certain procedures. In this study, we compared the infection rates of contaminated lacerations repaired with sterile versus non-sterile gloves. Materials and methods A prospective, randomised, two-centre pilot trial included patients that attended the emergency department with any type of visible contaminated soft tissue lacerations. The patients were selected according to convenience sampling technique and divided into two groups using random number table. Age, sex, and characteristics of the wound were assessed by a physician. According to that, the physician used sterile gloves or non-sterile, clean gloves for wound repair. Clinical data were analysed by chi-square test and paired-t test where appropriate. A p value =/< 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results Two hundred and twenty two recruited subjects with visible contaminated simple wounds were randomised to 2 groups. Males constituted 89.2% of the patients. The sites of lacerations were extremities in 50.5% of patients, head or neck in 48.4% of patients, and trunk in 1.1% of patients. Overall infection rate was 3.2%. The infection rates in the sterile gloves group and the clean gloves group were 2.02% and 4.6%, respectively (relative risk=2; odds ratio=2.3). Incidence of infection was not significantly different between two groups (p=0.322). Conclusion It seems that uses of clean gloves rather than sterile gloves do not increase the risk of infection in the repair of contaminated simple wounds in emergency department setting. (Hong Kong j. emerg.med. 2014;21:148-152)

show abstract

“…Aseptic technique needs to be related to practice through a comprehensive practice framework that reflects its critical importance to safe patient care. It is suggested in the literature (Aziz, 2009;Flores, 2008;Hartley, 2005;Rowley et al, 2010) that prior to the ANTT ® CPF there was little agreement concerning definitions and practice of aseptic technique. NICE suggests ANTT ® may represent a possible framework for establishing aseptic guidance (NICE, 2012).…”

Section: Moving Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aseptic technique is variously and confusingly described in the literature and problematic in practice. Hartley (2005) reports that aseptic technique is not carried out to a high standard across the UK and Flores (2008) suggested that there was a theory-practice gap along with much confusion and complacency in professional practice regarding aseptic technique. The vocabulary of aseptic technique is often inaccurate, used interchangeably, confusing and lacking in evidence, all of which appears to have contributed to practice variability, inadequate risk assessment and uncontrolled standards of practice (Aziz, 2009;Rowley et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) clinical practice framework for aseptic technique: a pragmatic evaluation using a mixed methods approach in two London hospitals

Clare¹,

Rowley²

2017

Journal of Infection Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sterile versus non-sterile glove use and aseptic technique

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection: a comprehensive review

Endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection: a comprehensive review

A Pilot Study on the Repair of Contaminated Traumatic Wounds in the Emergency Department Using Sterile versus Non-Sterile Gloves

Implementing the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) clinical practice framework for aseptic technique: a pragmatic evaluation using a mixed methods approach in two London hospitals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About