Efficacy of double gloving with an intrinsic indicator system.

BACKGROUND Blood-borne infection is an ever-present fear for medical professionals, especially surgeons and operating room personnel. Safety is paramount, and the reliability and efficacy of surgical gloves are crucial, as gloves are the most important barriers protecting hospital personnel and patients. Unfortunately, glove perforation rates are as high as 78% in high-risk procedures. As well as being efficacious, surgical gloves must be comfortable and easy to don, and when holes are present, it is imperative they be detected expeditiously. The purpose of this double-blind randomized study was to evaluate the ability of participants to locate 30-micron laser holes in surgical gloves while performing simulated surgery and to evaluate the Biogel Indicator Glove System, which reveals punctures. METHODS Twenty glove configurations (eight single, twelve double) were tested, half of which had laser-created holes. Each of the 25 participants tested and evaluated 20 configurations randomly. Simulated surgery terminated when a hole was identified by the participant or at the end of two minutes, whichever occurred first. Participants also rated their perceptions of each glove's features on questionnaires, all of which were returned, with 95.8% being complete. RESULTS Participants found 84% and 56% of the holes in the two indicator systems, latex and synthetic, in an average of 22 seconds and 42 seconds, respectively. In the worst-performing latex and synthetic glove configurations, participants found only 8% and 12% of the holes at an average of 47 seconds and 67 seconds, respectively. Indicator gloves were highly rated for comfort and ease of use. CONCLUSIONS Double gloving with an indicator system provides the best protection and allows the timeliest identification of perforations. Participants failed to identify most of the holes in the non-indicator gloves.

[1]  C. Twomey Double gloving: a risk reduction strategy. , 2003, Joint Commission journal on quality and safety.

[2]  Ronald L St Germaine,et al.  Double gloving and practice attitudes among surgeons. , 2003, American journal of surgery.

[3]  S Thomas,et al.  Intraoperative glove perforation—singleversus double gloving in protection against skin contamination , 2001, Postgraduate medical journal.

[4]  T. Laine,et al.  How often does glove perforation occur in surgery? Comparison between single gloves and a double-gloving system. , 2001, American journal of surgery.

[5]  Florman,et al.  Hepatitis C: the real danger to surgeons(1). , 2000, Current surgery.

[6]  F. Gottrup,et al.  Incidence of glove perforations in gastrointestinal surgery and the protective effect of double gloves: a prospective, randomised controlled study. , 2000, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[7]  E. Kovavisarach,et al.  Perforation in single‐ and double‐gloving methods for cesarean section , 1999, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[8]  P. Wurnig,et al.  Glove perforation rate in open lung surgery. , 1999, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[9]  C B Novak,et al.  Evaluation of hand sensibility with single and double latex gloves. , 1999, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[10]  P. Nicolai,et al.  Increased Awareness of Glover Perforation in Major Joint Replacement: A Prospective, Randomised Study of Regern Biogel Reveal Gloves , 1997 .

[11]  P. Nicolai,et al.  Increased awareness of glove perforation in major joint replacement. A prospective, randomised study of Regent Biogel Reveal gloves. , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  N. Birch,et al.  Protective gloves for use in high-risk patients: how much do they affect the dexterity of the surgeon? , 1997, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[13]  S. L. Jensen,et al.  Double gloving as self protection in abdominal surgery. , 1997, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[14]  S. Marín-Bertolín,et al.  Does Double Gloving Protect Surgical Staff from Skin Contamination during Plastic Surgery? , 1977, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

[15]  J. Duron,et al.  Efficacy of double gloving with a coloured inner pair for immediate detection of operative glove perforations. , 1996, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[16]  Sebold Ej,et al.  Intraoperative glove perforation : a comparative analysis , 1993 .

[17]  B. Pentlow,et al.  Double gloving and surgical technique. , 1993, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[18]  K. M. Miller,et al.  Unsuspected glove perforation during ophthalmic surgery. , 1993, Archives of ophthalmology.

[19]  E. J. Sebold Intraoperative glove perforation , 1993 .

[20]  S. Chow,et al.  The use of double latex gloves during hip fracture operations. , 1993, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[21]  H Goodman,et al.  Double gloving. Protecting surgeons from blood contamination in the operating room. , 1992, Archives of surgery.

[22]  R. Johanson,et al.  The effectiveness of double‐gloving in obstetrics and gynaecology , 1992, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[23]  A. M. Peacock,et al.  Surgical glove perforation , 1988, The British journal of surgery.

[24]  S. Hussain,et al.  Risk to surgeons: A survey of accidental injuries during operations , 1988, The British journal of surgery.