Search

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.

Purpose: To identify the type, rate, burden, and pattern of contamination of boxed, clean but nonsterile gloves in our intensive care unit (ICU)., Materials and Methods: The fingertips of the first, middle, and last two pairs of gloves in 29 boxes in routine service in our ICU were cultured. The first of each of these three sets were removed aseptically, the second in a routine fashion., Results: We found 16 of 29 (55%) first pairs removed aseptically to be contaminated with a mean bioburden of 1.8 colony-forming units (CFU). The percentage contamination and bioburden did not change significantly with position in the box. Use of routine compared with strict aseptic technique increased the rate of contamination by only 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.05 to +0.27 percentage points) and bioburden by only a mean of 3.4 colonies per pair (CI -0.51 to +4.90 CFU). The length of the time the boxes were open and in use was unrelated to whether the final aseptically removed pair was sterile or contaminated. The predominant organisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci., Conclusions: One half the pairs of latex examination gloves in our ICU were sterile despite repeated barehanded access to the boxes. Those contaminated exhibited a small bioburden of low pathogenic potential. No pattern of contamination or unsafe duration of box use were observed. The use of boxed, clean, nonsterile gloves appears safe for routine use in an ICU.