Efficacy of double versus single gloving in protecting the operating team.
Double-glove perforation rates and perforation rates in standard single-gloved operating teams were compared, in order to determine whether double gloving provides additional protection for the operating team. Patients were randomized to undergo surgery with a double-gloved or single-gloved operating team. All gloves worn during the operation were tested for perforations by water-filling and individual digital distension; 115 single-gloved operations and 103 double-gloved operations were performed. There were 841 individual operating team members 'at risk'. In the single-glove group, 20.8% of individuals had perforations, but only 2.5% had perforations in both inner and outer gloves (dual perforation) in the double-glove group (P less than 0.0001). The surgeon was most at risk of glove perforation (34.7% of cases in the single-glove group, 3.8% dual perforation in the double-glove group). Longer operations were associated with increased risk of glove perforation. Double-gloving significantly reduces the risk of skin contamination by blood and body fluids and is recommended for all high risk cases.
Gani
J S
JS
Department of General Surgery, Royal Newcastle Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
Anseline
P F
PF
Bissett
R L
RL
D013502:General Surgery; D005932:Gloves, Surgical; D006225:Hand; D006801:Humans; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000517:prevention & control; D010348:Patient Care Team; D012307:Risk Factors; D013499:Surface Properties; D013514:Surgical Procedures, Operative; D013997:Time Factors