Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection

Tanner, Judith; Parkinson, Hazel

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003087.pub2

Cited by 149 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With more specimens, more detailed analysis of risk by glove type and other factors could be possible. Double gloving is an effective way to protect patients and practitioners and is common practice in our institution; however, double gloving, while common, is not universally practiced [7,13,18]. Mischke et al [13] found inner-glove puncture risk could be reduced by 71% with double gloving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of power tools, handling sharp bone, and working in deep cavities all influence the risk of glove perforations in orthopaedic surgery [20]. Double gloving has been recommended in orthopaedic procedures to ameliorate the risk of perforation but compliance is not universal [7,18]. Duration of wear, degree of soilage, and other risk factors for glove perforation also have been reported [2,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McCue et al [12] reported that 19% of gloves became contaminated during draping for THA, and they recommend that the surgical team don a third set of gloves for draping and then remove the outer pair before the start of surgery. Other recommendations have been made regarding time of wear or scheduled changes before certain steps such as implant placement [4,16,18]. Although damage to gloves from needle stick injury is well documented [15], little has been reported regarding other mechanisms of glove damage during surgical procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

High Risk of Surgical Glove Perforation From Surgical Rotatory Instruments

Goldman

Haug

Owen

et al. 2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surgical gloves can be damaged during the course of a procedure, which can place the surgeon and patient at risk. Glove perforation may not always be readily apparent, and determining the risk factors for glove perforation can aid the surgeon in deciding when a glove change is advisable. Time of wear and needle sticks have been well studied; however, other mechanisms including mechanical stress from surgical equipment have had limited evaluation to date. Questions/purposes We evaluated the risk of glove perforation in gloves that were caught in a surgical rotatory device (such as drills and reamers). The aims of our study were (1) to determine the percentage of undetected microperforations after entanglement on a rotatory tool during orthopaedic procedures, (2) to determine which kinds of rotatory devices most commonly cause such microperforations, and (3) to assess whether time of wear had an effect on the risk of perforation. Methods From July 2014 to September 2015, 33 gloves were obtained from all orthopaedic subspecialties at our Level I trauma center if they were caught in a rotatory device greater than one revolution. Time of glove wear and location of the glove that was caught in a rotatory device were recorded. After an evaluation for macroperforations (C 5 mm), the gloves were evaluated for microperforations (\ 5 mm) via the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) one-liter load test. Time of wear was compared among gloves with macroperforations, microperforations, and no perforations. Results The 33 gloves obtained came from 33 procedures. Seventeen of 33 (52 %) gloves had perforations. Seven of the 17 perforated gloves had macroperforations while 10 had microperforations. Eleven of 33 entanglements were caught by drills, nine by reamers, eight by Kwires, and the remaining five gloves were caught by various other instruments. Eight of 17 perforations were caused by drills, three by reamers, three by K-wires, and three by various other instruments. The average time of wear was 58 minutes which did not differ with pattern of glove damage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

High Risk of Surgical Glove Perforation From Surgical Rotatory Instruments

Goldman

Haug

Owen

et al. 2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Double gloving reduces the risk of glove perforation; and in procedures such as orthopaedic surgeries, where sharp edges could be encountered easily, following double gloving protocols is highly recommended (65)(66)(67). However, with a double gloving protocol, the inner glove could still be perforated and become contaminated during the course of the procedure.…”

Section: Surgical Glovesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Rezapoor

Parvızı

2015

The Journal of Arthroplasty

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…99,100 Universal and standard infection control procedures are designed to protect healthcare workers and patients, 101 although compliance in dental practice is sometimes lacking. 101 Glove perforation is not uncommon, 102 but most, 103,104 though not all 105 reports support the practice of double gloving as effective.…”

Section: Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%