Safety of the surgeon: ‘Double-gloving’ during surgical procedures

Arowolo, Olukayode; Agbakwuru, E A; Obonna, George Chilaka; Onyia, C. U.; Akinkuolie, Akinbolaji; Olaogun, Julius

doi:10.4102/sajhivmed.v15i4.325

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of previous studies show that perforation rate throughout a diversity of minor dental & oral surgical procedures has vacillated from 4.1% to 16%. [19][20]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gloves puncture in general dentistry.

Priya

Banglani

Punjabi

et al. 2019

TPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of current study was to identify particular procedures which are associated with a high risk of glove puncture and thereby assist in limiting the risk of infection, especially those in high risk group. Study Design: Observational study. Setting: Outpatient department of dentistry at Liaquat University hospital, Hyderabad. Period: August 2017 to January 2018. Materials and Methods: In present study gloves perforation were assessed after performing various dental treatments by using Latex Biogel gloves. Total 400 gloves were collected from department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, operative dentistry and prosthodontics, 100 from each department. Simple Water Inflation technique was used to test punctures in gloves to determine the number and position of punctures in used gloves. Data collection was done using SPSS version 22.0. Descriptive statistics were computed and differences between groups were assessed through T- test. P-value ≤ 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Results: Total 400 gloves were examined 100 from each department. Out of 100, 94 (94%) were found perforated from oral & maxillofacial surgery, 90 (90%) from orthodontics, 73 (73%) from prosthodontics & 80 (80%) from operative dentistry. Gloves puncture of left hand were more 292 (73%) than that of right hand 108 (27%) out of 400 gloves. Conclusion: Perforation of Gloves while several dental procedures have been evaluated and resulted that gloves on left hand were at greater risk unambiguously in the procedures in which wires were used, additional precautions like wearing double gloves during these procedures may therefore be indicated.

show abstract

“…The results of previous studies show that perforation rate throughout a diversity of minor dental & oral surgical procedures has vacillated from 4.1% to 16%. [19][20]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gloves puncture in general dentistry.

Priya

Banglani

Punjabi

et al. 2019

TPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the phase of eligibility, a total of 19 studies were excluded after assessing the full texts. The excluded studies included one case‐controlled study (Shek & Chau, 2014), eight studies involving indicator gloves as the double‐gloving group (Al‐Habdan et al, 2006; de Oliveira & Gama, 2014; Laine & Aarnio, 2001, 2004; Laine et al, 2004; Lancaster & Duff, 2007; Meakin et al, 2016; Naver & Gottrup, 2000), two papers not being published in English (de Castro‐Peraza et al, 2010; Na'aya et al, 2009), five applying special gloves (Carter et al, 2012; Casanova et al, 2012; Daeschlein et al, 2011; Egeler et al, 2016; Han et al, 2013), and three not setting the controlled groups (Arowolo et al, 2014; Dirschka et al, 2004; Tlili et al, 2018). Therefore, seven remaining articles were determined to be included in the current systematic review (Guo et al, 2012; Kovavisarach & Jaravechson, 1998; Kovavisarach & Seedadee, 2002; Kovavisarach & Vanitchanon, 1999; Makama et al, 2016; Punyatanasakchai et al, 2004; Thomas et al, 2001).…”

Section: The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of double‐gloving method on prevention of surgical glove perforations and blood contamination: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Zhang

Gao

Ruan

et al. 2021

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To determine the effectiveness of the double‐gloving method on preventing surgical glove perforation and blood contamination compared with single gloving. Design Systematic review. Data sources Seven electronic databases were searched including: Embase, CINAHL, OVID, Medline, Pubmed, Web of Science, and Foreign Medical Literature Retrieval Service in March 2020. Review method Our systematic review and meta‐analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Risk of bias of Cochrane Handbook (Version 5.1.0) was applied to evaluate the study quality. Revman 5.3 was used to calculate the effect size of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta‐analysis with forest plot and funnel plot was performed to compare the rate of surgical glove perforation and to determine the published bias, respectively. This review has been registered with ID: CRD42020189694 on the web site of PROSPERO. Results Seven randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy of double gloving on reducing surgical glove perforation were identified and a total of 7090 gloves were tested. After analyzing the pooled data, we identified that the rate of surgical glove perforation in the double‐gloving group was lower than that of single gloving with statistical significance (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64–0.89, p < .05). It was statistically significant that surgical glove perforation was lower in the double‐inner gloves as well as matched outer–inner perforated gloves compared with that of single glove (OR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03–0.07, p < .05). Conclusion Findings of this systematic review demonstrate that double gloving could reduce the rate of surgical‐glove perforation. Meanwhile, the risk of being contaminated by a blood‐borne pathogen during surgery could be reduced by wearing double gloves. We strongly suggest that surgical team members when operating should wear double gloves to protect themselves and reduce the risk of occupational blood exposure. Impact The necessity of double gloving for preventing blood contamination was demonstrated. The rate of surgical glove perforation is statistically significant in double‐gloving group compared to single gloving. Double gloving could reduce the risk of being contaminated during surgery by blood‐borne pathogen. Evidence is provided for surgical team and decision makers that double gloving could reduce occupational exposure.

show abstract

“…Si el tratamiento antirretroviral es bien llevado por el paciente con VIH+ y su carga viral en plasma es indetectable, la probabilidad de transmitir la enfermedad por esta vía es aún más baja 10,11 . Para reducir el riesgo de infección, al manipular material contaminado o fluidos corporales en procedimientos, se recomienda el uso de doble guante 12 . El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar las indicaciones y resultados de los procedimientos quirúrgicos cardiovasculares en pacientes portadores del virus de inmunodeficiencia adquirida.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified