Protective gloves for use in high-risk patients: how much do they affect the dexterity of the surgeon?
Twenty-five orthopaedic surgeons underwent eight motor and sensory tests while using four different glove combinations and without gloves. As well as single and double latex, surgeons wore a simple Kevlar glove with latex inside and outside and then wore a Kevlar and Medak glove with latex inside and outside, as recommended by the manufacturers. The effect of learning with each sequence was neutralised by randomising the glove order. The time taken to complete each test was recorded and, where appropriate, error rates were noted. Simple sensory tests took progressively longer to perform so that using the thickest glove combination led to the completion times being doubled. Error rates increased significantly. Tests of stereognosis also took longer and use of the thickest glove combination caused these tests to take three times as long on average. Error rates again increased significantly. However, prolongation of motor tasks was less marked. We conclude that, armed with this quantitative analysis of sensitivity and dexterity impairment, surgeons can judge the relative difficulties that may be incurred as a result of wearing the gloves against the benefits that they offer in protection.
Phillips
A M
AM
Royal Free Hospital, London.
Birch
N C
NC
Ribbans
W J
WJ
D002983:Clinical Competence; D005932:Gloves, Surgical; D006801:Humans; D017758:Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional / Q000517:prevention & control*; D009048:Motor Skills; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000517:prevention & control; D009985:Orthopedics / Q000592:standards*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D014110:Touch; D014777:Virus Diseases / Q000517:prevention & control