Glove Perforation in Orthopaedic Surgery
Pattern and Predictors
Keywords:
Blood‑borne pathogens, double gloving, Glove perforations, orthopaedic operations, single gloving, surgical site infectionAbstract
Background: Intact surgical gloves prevent transmission of pathogens between the surgeon and the patient. However, gloves may be breached during surgical operations with risk of cross‑transmission of pathogens between the surgeon and the patient. This study aimed to determine the incidence, nature and predictors of glove perforations in orthopaedic surgery. Methods: Gloves worn by the surgeon, their assistants and the scrub nurse were tested. Number, position and nature of perforations were recorded and analysed. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the impact of six possible predictors on the likelihood of glove perforation. Results: The operative glove perforation rate was 72.2%. Perforations occurred more on the nondominant hand (62.4%) and on outer gloves (85.8%). They were more common among surgeons and their assistants than scrub nurses and in trauma and implant operations than other surgeries. Only 27.1% of glove perforations were detected intraoperatively. The status of operative personnel and duration of surgery were predictive of glove perforation. Conclusions: Glove perforation is common in orthopaedic operations and was predicted by status of the surgeon and the duration of surgery. Double gloving provides a better barrier to contamination of surgeon’s skin by patients’ body fluids than single gloving; however, sometimes, the barrier can still fail. We recommend that double‑gloving be routinely used in orthopaedic surgery, especially where complex instrumentations are employed.
References
1. Misteli H, Weber WP, Reck S, Rosenthal R, Zwahlen M, Fueglistaler P,et al. Surgical glove perforation and the risk of surgical site infection.Arch Surg 2009;144:553‑8.
2. Kojima Y, Ohashi M. Unnoticed glove perforation during thoracoscopicand open thoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:1078‑80.
3. Naver LP, Gottrup F. Incidence of glove perforations in gastrointestinalsurgery and the protective effect of double gloves: A prospective,randomised controlled study. Eur J Surg 2000;166:293‑5.
4. Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross‑infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;3:CD003087.
5. Thomas S, Agarwal M, Mehta G. Intraoperative gloveperforation – Single versus double gloving in protection against skincontamination. Postgrad Med J 2001;77:458‑60.
6. Thanni LO, Yinusa W. Incidence of glove failure during orthopaedicoperations and the protective effect of double gloves. J Natl Med Assoc2003;95:1184‑8.
7. Maffuli N, Capasso G, Testa V. Glove perforation in elective orthopaedicsurgery. Acta Orthop Scand 1989;60:565‑6.
8. Walczak DA, Pawelczak D, Grobelski B, Pasieka Z. Surgicalgloves – Do they really protect us? Pol Przegl Chir 2014;86:238‑43.
9. Yinusa W, Li YH, Chow W, Ho WY, Leong JC. Glove punctures inorthopaedic surgery. Int Orthop 2004;28:36‑9.
10. Laine T, Aarnio P. How often does glove perforation occur in surgery?Comparison between single gloves and a double‑gloving system. Am JSurg 2001;181:564‑6.
11. Arowolo OA, Agbakwuru EA, Obonna GC, Onyia CU, Akinkuolie AA,Olaogun JG. Safety of the surgeon: ‘Double‑gloving’ during surgicalprocedures. South Afr J HIV Med 2014;15:144‑7.
12. Makama JG, Okeme IM, Makama EJ, Ameh EA. Glove perforation ratein surgery: A randomized, controlled study to evaluate the efficacy ofdouble gloving. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2016;17:436‑42.
13. Palmer C. Major trauma and the injury severity score – Where shouldwe set the bar? Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 2007;51:13‑29.
14. Caillot JL, Paparel P, Arnal E, Schreiber V, Voiglio EJ. Anticipateddetection of imminent surgeon‑patient barrier breaches. A prospectiverandomized controlled trial using an indicator underglove system.World J Surg 2006;30:134‑8.
15. Laine T, Aarnio P. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and doublegloving with two regular gloves. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:898‑900.
16. Hwang JS, Mehta AD, Yoon RS, Beebe KS. From amputation to limbsalvage reconstruction: Evolution and role of the endoprosthesis inmusculoskeletal oncology. J Orthop Traumatol 2014;15:81‑6.
17. Palmer JD, Rickett JW. The mechanisms and risks of surgical gloveperforation. J Hosp Infect 1992;22:279‑86.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Adesina Ajibade, Kehinde Sunday Oluwadiya, Peter Babatunde Olaitan, Johnson Dare Ogunlusi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma retain the copyright to their work.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
