Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:37:52.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glove Reinforcement An Alternative to Double Gloving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sadir Alrawi ,
Iyad Houshan ,
Radhakrishnan Satheesan ,
Ramanathan Raju ,
Joseph Cunningham Jr  and
Anthony Acinapura
Sadir Alrawi*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Iyad Houshan
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Radhakrishnan Satheesan
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Ramanathan Raju
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Joseph Cunningham Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Anthony Acinapura
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
*
9281 Shore Rd., #124, Brooklyn, NY 11209
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gloves, worn by the surgical team to prevent transmission of infections from and to patients, are prone to tears and perforations. This study was done to determine the frequency and sites of unrecognized glove perforation during surgical procedures. The percentage of glove perforation was 14%. Of the punctures, 73% occurred in one of four contiguous locations on the glove. We recommend glove reinforcement at these locations to provide better protection, as well as to reduce the burden of double gloving.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 8 , August 2001 , pp. 526 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hansen, KN, Korniewicz, DM, Hexter, DA, Kornilow, JR, Kelen, GD. Loss of glove integrity during emergency department procedures. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:65–72.Google Scholar
2. Eckford, SD, James, M, Jackson, SR, Hamer, AJ, Browning, JJ. Detection of glove puncture and skin contamination during caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1209–1211.Google Scholar
3. Jensen, SL, Kristensen, B, Fabrin, K. Double-gloving as self protection in abdominal surgery. Eur J Surg 1997;163:163–167.Google Scholar
4. Eggleston, MK Jr, Wax, JR, Philput, C, Eggleston, MH, Weiss, MI. Use of surgical pass trays to reduce intraoperative glove perforations. J Matern Fetal Med 1997;6:245–247.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Macintyre, IM, Currie, JS, Smith, DN, Anderson, ID, Cadossi, R. Reducing the risk of viral transmission at operation by electronic monitoring of the surgeon-patient barrier. Br J Surg 1994;81:1076–1078.Google Scholar
6. Brown, JN. Surgeon protection: early recognition of glove perforation using a green under glove. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1996;41:395–396.Google Scholar
7. Kovavisarach, E, Jaravechson, S. Comparison of perforation between single and double-gloving in perineorrhaphy after vaginal delivery: a randomized control trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;38:58–60.Google Scholar
8. Leslie, LF, Woods, JA, Thacker, JG, Morgan, RF, McGregor, W, Edlich, RF. Needle puncture resistance of surgical gloves, finger guards, and glove liners. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;33:41–46.Google Scholar