Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection

Brajesh Kumar; Saurov Ghose; Gaurav Pandey; Manashi Ghosh

doi:doi:10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

| Peer-Reviewed

Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection

Brajesh Kumar, Saurov Ghose, Gaurav Pandey, Manashi Ghosh

Published in Journal of Surgery (Volume 6, Issue 5)

Received: 22 September 2018 Accepted: 8 October 2018 Published: 30 October 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In a surgical setting there is always a possibility of cross infection between patient and surgeon and surgical gloves act as an important barrier to prevent this infection. Use of double gloves provides more effective barrier for transfer of pathogens from surgical team to patient and vice versa. This study compares the benefit of using double gloves versus single gloves in various departments and its role in preventing Surgical Site Infection (SSI). This study was conducted at Army Hospital (R&R) where surgical gloves used by the operating surgeon were checked for any perforation in outer and inner gloves. In case of perforation was detected, culture of both gloves and surgical part were taken and examined for any cross infection. This study reveals that simultaneous perforation rate of both outer and inner gloves was very less and hence chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon was less when compared to single glove use. Also, the rate of perforation was less in laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery however this is controversial as various studies which shows more perforation in laparoscopic surgery. The departments where surgeries were complex and were of longer duration had more perforation rate of gloves and consequently SSI. This study concludes that the use of double surgical gloves has got low chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon and hence low rate of Surgical Site Infection and hence should be encouraged.

Published in	Journal of Surgery (Volume 6, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
Page(s)	140-145
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Double Surgical Gloves, Perforation Rate, Surgical Site Infection (SSI), Dominant Hand, Non-Dominant Hand

References

[1]	Esteban Ji, Go’mez J, Martell M, et al. Transmission of hepatitis C virus by a cardiac surgeon. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334 (9); 555-560.
[2]	Harpaz R, Von Seidlein L, Averhoff FM, et al. Transmission of hepatitis B virus to multiple patients from a surgeon without evidence of inadequate infection control. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334 (9): 549-554.
[3]	Needlestick transmission of HTLV- III froma patient infected in Africa. Lancet. 1984; 2 (8416): 1376-1377.
[4]	Kiyosawa K, Sodeyama T, Tanaka E, et al, Hepatitis C in hospital employees with needlestick injuries. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 115 (5): 367-369.
[5]	Rabussay DP, Korniewicz DM. Improving glove effectiveness. AORN Journal 1997; 66 (6): 1057-60.
[6]	Jaggar J, Bentley M, Tereskerz P. A study of patterns and prevention of blood exposure in OR Personnel. AORN Journal 1998; 67 (5): 979-81.
[7]	Panlilo AL, Foy DR, Edwards JR et al. Blood contacts during surgical procedures. Journal of the American Medical Association 1991; 265 (12): 1533-7.
[8]	Rabussay DP, Korniewicz DM. Improving glove barrier effectiveness. AORN J 1997; 66 (6): 1043- 1046.
[9]	DM, Rabussay DP. Surgical glove failures in clinical practice settings. AORN J 1997; 66 (4): 660-668, 671, 673.
[10]	Kojima Y, Ohashi M. Unnoticed glove perforation during thoracoscopic and open thoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 80 (3): 1078-1080.
[11]	Greco RJ, Wheatley M, Mc Kenna P. Risk of blood contact through surgical gloves in aesthectic procedures. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1993; 17 (2): 167-168.
[12]	Gunasekera PC, Fernando RJ, de Silva KK. Glove failure: an occupational hazard of surgeons in developing country. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1997; 42 (2): 95-97.
[13]	Maffulli N, Capasso G, Testa V. Glove perforation in elective orthopedic surgery, Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 60 (5): 565-566.
[14]	Yinusa W, Li YH, Chow W, et al. Glove punctures in orthopedics surgery. Int Orthop. 2004; 28 (1): 36-39.
[15]	Kojima Y, Ohashi M. Unnoticed glove perforation during thoracoscopic and open thoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 80 (3): 1086-1088.
[16]	Gunasekera PC, Fernando RJ, de Silva KK. Glove failure: an occupational hazard of surgeons in developing country. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1997; 42 (2): 92-94.
[17]	Quebbeman EJ, Telford GL, Wadsworth K, et al. Double gloving: protecting surgeons from blood contamination in the operating room. Arch Surg. 1992; 127 (2): 213-217.
[18]	Dodds RD, Guy PJ, Peacock AM, et al. Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg. 1998; 75 (10) 966- 968.
[19]	Punyatanasakchai P, Chittacharoen A, Ayudhya Ni. Randomized controlled trial of glove perforation in single and double gloving in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivary. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004; 30 (5): 354-357.
[20]	T, Aarnio P. how often does glove perforation occur in surgery? Comparison between single gloves and double gloves system. Am J Surg. 2001; 181 (6): 564-566.
[21]	Nicolai P, Aldam CH, Allen PW. Increased awareness of glove perforation in major joint replacement: a prospective, randomized study of Regent Biogel Reveal gloves. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997; 79 (3): 371-373.
[22]	Evaluation of Surgical Glove Perforation after Laparoscopic and Open Cholecystectomy. D. A. Walczak, J. Zakrzewski, D. Pawełczak, B. Grobelski, Z. Pasieka. Acta Chir Belg, 2013, 113, 423-428
[23]	Feng t., Yohannan J., guPta a., hYnDman m. e., allaf M. Microperforations of surgical gloves in urology: minimally invasive versus open surgeries. Can J Urol, 2011, 18: 5615-5618.
[24]	Naven LP, Gottrup F. incidence of glove perforation in gastro intestinal surgery and the protective effect of double gloves: prospective randomized controlled study. Eur J Surg 2000; 166: 293- 295.
[25]	T Laine, A Kaipa, J Santavirta. Gloves perforation in open and Laproscopic abdominal surgery, the feasibility of double gloving. Scandinovian Journal of Surery 2004; 93:73-76.
[26]	Susan E Grean, R Henry K Gompertz. Gloves perforation during surgery: what are the risks? Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (1992); 74: 306-308.
[27]	S Thomas, M Agarwal, G Mehta. Intraoperative glove perforation- single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination. Postgrad Med J 2001; 77:458-460.
[28]	Heidi Misteli, Watler P Weber, Stefan Reck et al. surgical gloves perforation and the risk of surgical site onfection. Arch Surg 2009; 144 (6): 553-558.
[29]	Textbook of surgery the biological basis of modern surgical practice, Vol 1, 19^th edition. Sabiston, Townsend Publishers.
[30]	Sohn RL, Murray MT, Franko A et al. detection of surgical glove integrity. Am Surg. 2000 Mar; 66 (3):302-6.
[31]	S Thomas, M Agarwal, G Mehta. Intra operative glove perforation single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination. Postgrad J 2001; 77: 472-47
[32]	Lars Ivo Partecke, Anna Maria Goerdt, Inga Langner et al. Incidence of Micro perforation for surgical gloves depends on duration on wear. JSTOR 2009; 30 (5):409-414.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Brajesh Kumar, Saurov Ghose, Gaurav Pandey, Manashi Ghosh. (2018). Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection. Journal of Surgery, 6(5), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Brajesh Kumar; Saurov Ghose; Gaurav Pandey; Manashi Ghosh. Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection. J. Surg. 2018, 6(5), 140-145. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Brajesh Kumar, Saurov Ghose, Gaurav Pandey, Manashi Ghosh. Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection. J Surg. 2018;6(5):140-145. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.js.20180605.16,
  author = {Brajesh Kumar and Saurov Ghose and Gaurav Pandey and Manashi Ghosh},
  title = {Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection},
  journal = {Journal of Surgery},
  volume = {6},
  number = {5},
  pages = {140-145},
  doi = {10.11648/j.js.20180605.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.js.20180605.16},
  abstract = {In a surgical setting there is always a possibility of cross infection between patient and surgeon and surgical gloves act as an important barrier to prevent this infection. Use of double gloves provides more effective barrier for transfer of pathogens from surgical team to patient and vice versa. This study compares the benefit of using double gloves versus single gloves in various departments and its role in preventing Surgical Site Infection (SSI). This study was conducted at Army Hospital (R&R) where surgical gloves used by the operating surgeon were checked for any perforation in outer and inner gloves. In case of perforation was detected, culture of both gloves and surgical part were taken and examined for any cross infection. This study reveals that simultaneous perforation rate of both outer and inner gloves was very less and hence chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon was less when compared to single glove use. Also, the rate of perforation was less in laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery however this is controversial as various studies which shows more perforation in laparoscopic surgery. The departments where surgeries were complex and were of longer duration had more perforation rate of gloves and consequently SSI. This study concludes that the use of double surgical gloves has got low chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon and hence low rate of Surgical Site Infection and hence should be encouraged.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
AU  - Brajesh Kumar
AU  - Saurov Ghose
AU  - Gaurav Pandey
AU  - Manashi Ghosh
Y1  - 2018/10/30
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
T2  - Journal of Surgery
JF  - Journal of Surgery
JO  - Journal of Surgery
SP  - 140
EP  - 145
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0930
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
AB  - In a surgical setting there is always a possibility of cross infection between patient and surgeon and surgical gloves act as an important barrier to prevent this infection. Use of double gloves provides more effective barrier for transfer of pathogens from surgical team to patient and vice versa. This study compares the benefit of using double gloves versus single gloves in various departments and its role in preventing Surgical Site Infection (SSI). This study was conducted at Army Hospital (R&R) where surgical gloves used by the operating surgeon were checked for any perforation in outer and inner gloves. In case of perforation was detected, culture of both gloves and surgical part were taken and examined for any cross infection. This study reveals that simultaneous perforation rate of both outer and inner gloves was very less and hence chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon was less when compared to single glove use. Also, the rate of perforation was less in laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery however this is controversial as various studies which shows more perforation in laparoscopic surgery. The departments where surgeries were complex and were of longer duration had more perforation rate of gloves and consequently SSI. This study concludes that the use of double surgical gloves has got low chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon and hence low rate of Surgical Site Infection and hence should be encouraged.
VL  - 6
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Brajesh Kumar

Department of Surgery, Military Hospital, Dehradun, India
Saurov Ghose

Department of Surgery, Military Hospital, Dehradun, India
Gaurav Pandey

Department of Anaesthesia, Military Hospital, Dehradun, India
Manashi Ghosh

Department of Radiotherapy, Govt Doon Medical College, Dehradun, India

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Brajesh Kumar, Saurov Ghose, Gaurav Pandey, Manashi Ghosh. (2018). Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection. Journal of Surgery, 6(5), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Brajesh Kumar; Saurov Ghose; Gaurav Pandey; Manashi Ghosh. Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection. J. Surg. 2018, 6(5), 140-145. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Brajesh Kumar, Saurov Ghose, Gaurav Pandey, Manashi Ghosh. Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection. J Surg. 2018;6(5):140-145. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20180605.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.js.20180605.16,
  author = {Brajesh Kumar and Saurov Ghose and Gaurav Pandey and Manashi Ghosh},
  title = {Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection},
  journal = {Journal of Surgery},
  volume = {6},
  number = {5},
  pages = {140-145},
  doi = {10.11648/j.js.20180605.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.js.20180605.16},
  abstract = {In a surgical setting there is always a possibility of cross infection between patient and surgeon and surgical gloves act as an important barrier to prevent this infection. Use of double gloves provides more effective barrier for transfer of pathogens from surgical team to patient and vice versa. This study compares the benefit of using double gloves versus single gloves in various departments and its role in preventing Surgical Site Infection (SSI). This study was conducted at Army Hospital (R&R) where surgical gloves used by the operating surgeon were checked for any perforation in outer and inner gloves. In case of perforation was detected, culture of both gloves and surgical part were taken and examined for any cross infection. This study reveals that simultaneous perforation rate of both outer and inner gloves was very less and hence chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon was less when compared to single glove use. Also, the rate of perforation was less in laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery however this is controversial as various studies which shows more perforation in laparoscopic surgery. The departments where surgeries were complex and were of longer duration had more perforation rate of gloves and consequently SSI. This study concludes that the use of double surgical gloves has got low chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon and hence low rate of Surgical Site Infection and hence should be encouraged.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Study the Incidence of Surgical Glove Perforation during Surgery and Evaluation for the Risk of Perforation and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
AU  - Brajesh Kumar
AU  - Saurov Ghose
AU  - Gaurav Pandey
AU  - Manashi Ghosh
Y1  - 2018/10/30
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
T2  - Journal of Surgery
JF  - Journal of Surgery
JO  - Journal of Surgery
SP  - 140
EP  - 145
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0930
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20180605.16
AB  - In a surgical setting there is always a possibility of cross infection between patient and surgeon and surgical gloves act as an important barrier to prevent this infection. Use of double gloves provides more effective barrier for transfer of pathogens from surgical team to patient and vice versa. This study compares the benefit of using double gloves versus single gloves in various departments and its role in preventing Surgical Site Infection (SSI). This study was conducted at Army Hospital (R&R) where surgical gloves used by the operating surgeon were checked for any perforation in outer and inner gloves. In case of perforation was detected, culture of both gloves and surgical part were taken and examined for any cross infection. This study reveals that simultaneous perforation rate of both outer and inner gloves was very less and hence chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon was less when compared to single glove use. Also, the rate of perforation was less in laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery however this is controversial as various studies which shows more perforation in laparoscopic surgery. The departments where surgeries were complex and were of longer duration had more perforation rate of gloves and consequently SSI. This study concludes that the use of double surgical gloves has got low chances of cross infection between patient and surgeon and hence low rate of Surgical Site Infection and hence should be encouraged.
VL  - 6
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download