Search

Background: Disinfection of gloves can be used during a pandemic situation when performing various procedures on the same patient or when removing personal protective equipment. If performing glove disinfection, there is a need to check the compatibility of gloves with the disinfectant product used., Aim: To test the resistance of nitrile gloves to various disinfectant solutions., Methods: One hundred percent powder-free nitrile gloves, composed of nitrile butadiene rubber compounds, were exposed to various disinfectants to analyse resistance. The seven most commonly used disinfectant solutions in the healthcare field were selected for testing. The effects of each disinfectant were analysed in comparison with the control group (untreated glove). For tensile testing, the thickness of each test specimen was measured with a micrometer., Findings: Bleach solution decreased the breaking load of gloves, although to a lesser extent than disinfectants that contained ethanol., Conclusion: Disinfectants that contain alcohol decrease the breaking load of nitrile gloves., (Copyright © 2020 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the time points during a total knee arthroplasty operation when there is the greatest possibility of tearing a surgical glove and thus the stage of the operation at which there is the greatest risk of infection., Methods: The study included 300 total knee arthroplasty cases performed by 10 orthopedic surgeons. Using a chronometer during the operation, the upper layer of each surgical glove was removed and inflated with sterile saline at 10-min intervals. When a tear was determined, a record was made of the time it occurred, the stage of the operation, the finger that was torn, and the side (right or left hand)., Results: The mean time of the glove perforation was 40.74 ± 10.69 min. Glove tears occurred at the rate of 28.9% ( n = 39) in the thumb, 63.7% ( n = 86) in the index finger, 2.2% ( n = 3) in the middle finger, and 5.2% ( n = 7) in the ring finger. The tears occurred after the femoral cut in 8.1% ( n = 11), after the tibial cut in 14.8% ( n = 20), at the stage of trial component reduction in 52.6% of cases ( n = 71), after placement of the prosthesis in 7.4% ( n = 10), and at the closure stage in 17% ( n = 23) ( p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The fingers requiring the most care during total knee arthroplasty are the thumb and index finger. The stages of the operation with the greatest risk for glove tears are trial component reduction and wound closure. Changing gloves after these high-risk surgical stages would help to decrease the risk of periprosthetic infections., Level of Evidence: Level IV/Case series.

Sterile protective gloves are used to reduce the risk of infection for patients and clinicians in all healthcare settings. This is particularly important in operating theatres, where surgical site infection is a common and serious complication for perioperative patients. These gloves have traditionally been made from natural rubber latex and dusted with cornstarch powder. However, frequent use of latex gloves can lead to a hypersensitivity or allergy to latex. A latex allergy causes discomfort and inconvenience, and it may reduce productivity, impose significant financial burdens and even be life threatening. There has not been sufficient evidence to ban the clinical use of latex; however, in cases of suspected latex allergy, guidelines recommend the use of either latex-free gloves or powder-free, low-protein latex gloves. The use of these alternative gloves has typically been limited to cases of allergy, because they have previously been associated with reduced dexterity and durability compared with latex gloves. This article presents four case studies, in which health professionals in a perioperative setting compare the advantages and disadvantages of using traditional latex surgical gloves with those of latex-free gloves manufactured by Cardinal Health. The findings of these case studies suggest that these latex-free gloves are equal to latex gloves in terms of establishing asepsis and providing comfort and dexterity to the wearer, without presenting the risk of developing latex sensitivity and/or allergy.

Sterility is of utmost importance during surgery, particularly orthopaedic surgery. The literature suggests sterility, when compromised, is frequently contaminated at the point of donning sterile gowns and gloves. We describe a novel method to assess the compliance of sterility whilst applying surgical gloves using an ultraviolet lightbox and an ultraviolet-sensitive 'Germ paint'. We carried out an audit of 'sterility' using this method with our surgical trainees. A subsequent educational programme described methods of glove-donning. Repeat assessment yielded significantly improved results. Educating staff using this method may improve sterility in theatre. We believe this is a novel method to teach and assess sterility during glove-donning. The equipment is readily accessible within each NHS hospital. Medical and theatre staff should use this as part of training and departmental induction programmes.

Background: Interruptions in compressions reducethe efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and are inevitable during hands-off periods for shocks. Clinical exam gloves were found to facilitate safe contact with patients during shock delivery but the safety of this practice has been questioned. Polyethylene is of interest because of its safety record in the medical arena and its electrical insulation properties., Methods: This study measured the current leak through 2 mil (0.002 inch) polyethylene drapes during shock delivery. The current leak was assessed by measurement of voltage changes in a circuit recommended by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for current leak safety testing. Current flowed off the drape, through the circuit and to electric ground in a manner consistent with standardized testing. Perceptibility was assessed in a subset with the investigator's bare hands pressed into the drape during shock delivery., Results: Thirty-three patients undergoing elective cardioversion at Emory University Hospital underwent analysis (age 23-90, 36% female). Biphasic energies were 200-360 J. The root mean square (RMS) current leak averaged 0.072 ± 0.022 mA and peak current leak averaged 0.67 ± 0.21 which is well below IEC recommendations of 3.5 mA RMS and 5.0 mA peak. Finally, no instances of dielectric breakdown occurred and no shocks were perceptible., Conclusions: Polyethylene is a common medical material which may facilitate safe hands-on defibrillation. Our data illustrates that a thin, semitransparent layer of polyethylene is a safe and feasible adjunct to cardiac arrest kits to allow continued compressions and simplification of the CPR process., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Some surgeons change gloves and instruments after the extirpative phase of cancer surgery with the intent of reducing the risk of local and wound recurrence. Although this practice is conceptually appealing, the evidence that gloves or instruments act as vectors of cancer-cell seeding in the clinical setting is weak. To determine the potential effect of further investigation of this question, we surveyed the practices and beliefs of a broad spectrum of surgeons who operate on cancer patients., Methods: Using a modified Dillman approach, a survey was mailed to all 945 general surgeons listed in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario public registry. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and free-text response questions. Responses were tabulated and grouped into themes, including specific intraoperative events and surgeon training. Predictive variables were analyzed by chi-square test., Results: Of 459 surveys returned (adjusted response rate: 46%), 351 met the inclusion criteria for retention. Of those respondents, 52% reported that they change gloves during cancer resections with the intent of decreasing the risk of tumour seeding, and 40%, that they change instruments for that purpose. The proportion of respondents indicating that they take measures to protect the wound was 73% for laparoscopic cancer resections and 31% for open resections. Training and years in practice predicted some of the foregoing behaviours. The most commonly cited basis for adopting specific strategies to prevent tumour seeding was "gut feeling," followed by clinical training. Most respondents believe that it is possible or probable that surgical gloves or instruments harbour malignant cells, but that a cancer recurrence proceeding from that situation is unlikely., Conclusions: There is no consensus on how gloves and instruments should be handled in cancer operations. Further investigation is warranted.

Background: Surgical glove perforation may expose both patients and staff members to severe complications. This study aimed to determine surgical glove perforation rate and the factors associated with glove defect., Material and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between January and March 2017 at a Tunisian university hospital center in 3 different surgical departments: urology, maxillofacial, and general and digestive. The gloves were collected and tested to detect perforations using the water-leak test as described in European Norm NF EN 455-1. For percentage comparisons, the χ 2 test was used with a significance threshold of 5%., Results: A total of 284 gloves were collected. Of these, 47 were found to be perforated, a rate of 16.5%. All perforations were unnoticed by the surgical team members. The majority of perforated gloves (61.7%) were collected after urology procedures (P = .00005), 77% of perforated gloves were detected when the duration of the procedure exceeded 90 minutes (P = .001), and 96% were from brand A, which were the thicker gloves (P = .015)., Conclusions: This study highlighted an important problem neglected by surgical teams. The findings reaffirm the importance of double-gloving and changing gloves in surgeries of more than 90 minutes' duration., (Copyright © 2018 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Colorectal surgeries (CRS) have one of the highest rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) with rates 15 to >30%. Prevention "bundles" or sets of evidence-based interventions are structured ways to improve patient outcomes. The aim sof this study is to evaluate CRS SSI prevention bundles, bundle components, and implementation and compliance strategies., Methods: A meta-analysis of studies with pre- and post-implementation data was conducted to assess the impact of bundles on SSI rates (superficial, deep, and organ/space). Subgroup analysis of bundle components identified optimal bundle designs., Results: Thirty-five studies (51,413 patients) were identified and 23 (17,557 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. A SSI risk reduction of 40% (p < 0.001) was noted with 44% for superficial SSI (p < 0.001) and 34% for organ/space (p = 0.048). Bundles with sterile closure trays (58.6 vs 33.1%), MBP with oral antibiotics (55.4 vs 31.8%), and pre-closure glove changes (56.9 vs 28.5%) had significantly greater SSI risk reduction., Conclusion: Bundles can effectively reduce the risk of SSIs after CRS, by fostering a cohesive environment, standardization, and reduction in operative variance. If implemented successfully and complied with, bundles can become vital to improving patients' surgical quality of care.

Background: The risk of exposure of either the patient or the surgeon to communicable disease when the surgical glove is perforated is important. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. Therefore, we intended to determine the efficacy of double gloving in our center., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study, involving (randomly selected) surgeons, who wore single or double latex surgical gloves during procedures. Gloves were collected and evaluated for perforations (using air insufflation and water leak methods)., Results: A total of 1,536 gloves were collected (512 single gloves and 1,024 double gloves), with 78 of 512 gloves perforated, giving a rate of 15.2%. Perforation rate was 15.2% in single gloves, 14.4% in double gloves, 15.5% in emergency operations, and 14.3% in elective surgery. It was highest (30.8%) among registrars in training, particularly when doing any deep (16.0%) surgery. Glove perforation rate was highest (17.4%) among general surgery procedures as opposed to pediatric surgery (14.6%), urology (13.9%), neurosurgery (11.7%), and plastic surgery (10.6%), with (42.1%) index finger injury. In unused (control group) gloves, the rate of perforation was (0.8%). There was a substantial difference in the overall perforation rate between single and double glove sets (15.2% versus 14.4%) (X(2) = 1748, p < 0.0001). However, among the double set, total gloves [outer and inner set] analysis revealed a perforation rate of 27.5% (141 of 512). Of this set, the number of inner gloves that perforated as a result of a through and through puncture from outer to the inner gloves gave a rate of 1.17% (six of 512). Thus, the protection offered by double gloves was 98.83% (X(2) = 280.9, p < 0.0001) even if the outer gloves were perforated., Conclusion: The use of double gloves has more than 90% protection to patient and the surgeon. Therefore, wearing double gloves should be encouraged in surgery.

Background: Anesthesiologists may contribute to postoperative infections by means of the transmission of blood and pathogens to the patient and the environment in the operating room (OR). Our primary aims were to determine whether contamination of the IV hub, the anesthesia work area, and the patient could be reduced after induction of anesthesia by removing the risk associated with contaminants on the laryngoscope handle and blade. Therefore, we conducted a study in a simulated OR where some of the participants sheathed the laryngoscope handle and blade in a glove immediately after it was used to perform an endotracheal intubation., Methods: Forty-five anesthesiology residents (postgraduate year 2-4) were enrolled in a study consisting of identical simulation sessions. On entry to the simulated OR, the residents were asked to perform an anesthetic, including induction and endotracheal intubation timed to approximately 6 minutes. Of the 45 simulation sessions, 15 were with a control group conducted with the intubating resident wearing single gloves, 15 with the intubating resident using double gloves with the outer pair removed and discarded after verified intubation, and 15 wearing double gloves and sheathing the laryngoscope in one of the outer gloves after intubation. Before the start of the scenario, the lips and inside of the mouth of the mannequin were coated with a fluorescent marking gel. After each of the 45 simulations, an observer examined the OR using an ultraviolet light to determine the presence of fluorescence on 25 sites: 7 on the patient and 18 in the anesthesia environment., Results: Of the 7 sites on the patient, ultraviolet light detected contamination on an average of 5.7 (95% confidence interval, 4.4-7.2) sites under the single-glove condition, 2.1 (1.5-3.1) sites with double gloves, and 0.4 (0.2-1.0) sites with double gloves with sheathing. All 3 conditions were significantly different from one another at P < 0.001. Of the 18 environmental sites, ultraviolet light detected fluorescence on an average of 13.2 (95% confidence interval, 11.3-15.6) sites under the single-glove condition, 3.5 (2.6-4.7) with double gloves, and 0.5 (0.2-1.0) with double gloves with sheathing. Again, all 3 conditions were significantly different from one another at P < 0.001., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that when an anesthesiologist in a simulated OR sheaths the laryngoscope immediately after endotracheal intubation, contamination of the IV hub, patient, and intraoperative environment is significantly reduced.

Moving from the study conducted in 2004 on adult surgeons we want to analyze the ergonomics applied in pediatric minimally invasive surgery. An online survey was conducted among the members of the European Paediatric Surgeons' Association that included 14 questions pertaining to demographic, surgical glove size, double glove use, prior hand surgery, and the ease or difficulty in using different types of laparoscopic instruments. A total of 138 pediatric surgeons completed the survey. The difficulty score (DS) was similar between the 3.5- and 5-mm instruments. Other specialized instruments such as Ligasure, Ultracision, Clip applicators, endobags, and staplers were found to have higher DS. The needle holder was the only instrument that is part of the normal 5-mm operating sets, which was found to have a higher DS. Our survey found increased DS with the endobag and stapler, but this was not significant. Also prior hand surgery or double glove use was not associated with difficulty in usage of minimally invasive instruments when compared with normal hands in this survey.

Background: Inappropriate use of medical gloves may support microbial transmission. New strategies could increase the safety of medical gloves without the risk of patient and surface contamination., Aim: To compare the efficacy of synthetic antibacterial nitrile medical gloves coated with polyhexamethylen-biguanid hydrochloride (PHMB) on the external surface with identical non-antibacterial medical gloves in reducing glove contamination after common patient care measures in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting., Methods: ICU staff wore either standard or antibacterial gloves during patient care activities. The number of bacteria on gloves was measured semi-quantitatively immediately after the performance of four clinical activities., Findings: There was a significant difference in mean bacterial growth [colony-forming units (cfu)] between control gloves and antibacterial gloves {60 [standard deviation (SD) 23] vs 16 (SD 23) cfu/glove imprint, P < 0.001}. In three of the four clinical activities (intravenous fluid handling, oral toilet and physiotherapy), the antibacterial gloves had significantly less bacterial contamination compared with the control gloves (P = 0.011 and <0.001, respectively). Although antibacterial gloves showed lower bacterial contamination after changing linen compared with control gloves, the difference was not significant (P = 0.311)., Conclusion: This study showed that use of antibacterial medical gloves significantly reduced bacterial contamination after typical patient care activities in 57% of the investigated clinical activities (P < 0.01). The use of antibacterial medical gloves may support reduction of cross-contamination in the ICU setting., (Copyright © 2015 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To analyze perforation rate in sterile gloves used by surgeons in the operating theatre of the Department of Endocrinological and General Surgery of Medical University of Lodz., Material and Methods: Randomized and controlled trial. This study analyses the incidents of tears in sterile surgical gloves used by surgeons during operations on 3 types of thyroid diseases according to the 10th revision of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) codes. Nine hundred seventy-two pairs (sets) of gloves were collected from 321 surgical procedures. All gloves were tested immediately following surgery using the water leak test (EN455-1) to detect leakage., Results: Glove perforation was detected in 89 of 972 glove sets (9.2%). Statistically relevant more often glove tears occurred in operator than the 1st assistant (p < 0.001). The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the middle finger of the non-dominant hand (22.5%), and the non-dominant ring finger (17.9%)., Conclusions: This study has proved that the role performed by the surgeon during the procedure (operator, 1st assistant) has significant influence on the risk of glove perforations. Nearly 90% of glove perforations are unnoticed during surgery., (This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.)

Compliance of using gloves in the operating room (OR) is still poor amongst anesthesia providers. The practice of using gloves amongst OR anesthesia providers (attending anesthesiologists, anesthesia nurses, and trainees) in a tertiary care center was observed over 8 months. Observations were made during intravenous (IV) cannulations, laryngeal mask airway (LMA)/endotracheal tube (ETT) introductions, and ETT extubation/LMA removals, without alerting anesthesia personnel. Ten observations were made from each of the procedures for every provider involved. 1,240 observations were made involving 8 attending anesthesiologists, 9 trainees, and 14 nurses. A Chi-square test showed significant difference of glove utilization rates between the groups during all 4 procedures. The highest compliance was observed in trainees (50%), followed by nurses (39.64%), and attending anesthesiologists (10.93%). All groups had their highest compliance levels during IV cannulation. Additionally, attending anesthesiologists had the lowest compliance levels during all individual procedures. Anesthesia nurses had the highest compliance during LMA removals (39.29%), whereas trainees showed the highest compliance in all other procedures. Glove usage by anesthesia providers during routine OR procedures continues to be low. Educational programs highlighting the hazards of noncompliance and strict departmental protocols may help to eliminate irregularities in the use of gloves.

Aim: To analyze tears in sterile surgical gloves used by surgeons in the operating theatre of the Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery Department, Copernicus Memorial Hospital, Łódź, Poland., Materials and Method: This study analyzes tears in sterile surgical gloves used by surgeons by ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. 1,404 gloves were collected from 581 surgical procedures. All gloves were tested immediately following surgery using the test method described in Standard EN455-1 (each glove was inflated with 1,000 ± 50 ml of water and observed for leaks for 2-3 min.)., Results: Analysis of tears took into consideration the role of medical personnel (operator, first assistant, second assistant) during surgical procedure, the type of procedure according to ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, and the elective or emergency nature of the procedure. The results of the study show that these factors have a significant influence on the risk of glove tears. Significant differences were observed in tear frequency and tear location depending on the function performed by the surgeon during the procedure., Conclusion: The study proved that the role performed by the surgeon during the procedure (operator, first assistant, second assistant) has a significant influence on the risk of glove tearing. The role in the procedure determines exposure to glove tears. Implementing a double gloving procedure in surgical procedures or using single gloves characterized by higher tear resistance should be considered.

Purpose: To determine whether glove use modifies tactile and psychomotor performance of health care providers when compared with no glove use and to evaluate factors that influence the selection of sterile glove brand., Methods: Forty-two anesthesia providers (nine anesthesiologists, seven nurse anesthetists, 20 residents, six student nurse anesthetists) enrolled in and completed this cross-over randomized trial from May 2010 until August 2011. Participants underwent standardized psychomotor testing while wearing five different types of protective gloves. Assessments of psychomotor performance included tactile, fine motor/dexterity, and hand-eye coordination tests. Subjective ratings of glove comfort and performance were reported at the completion of each glove trial. The manufacturer's suggested retail price was collected for each glove tested., Results: There were statistically significant differences in touch sensitivity for all nerve distributions, with all glove types resulting in less sensitivity than a bare hand. When compared with the non-sterile glove, only the thickest glove tested (Ansell Perry Orthopaedic) was found to have less touch sensitivity. Fine motor dexterity testing revealed no statistically significant differences in time to completion amongst glove types or bare handed performance. In hand-eye coordination testing across treatment conditions, the thickest glove tested (Ansell Perry(®) Orthopaedic) was the only glove to show a statistically significant difference from a bare hand. There were statistically significant differences in glove comfort ratings across glove types, with latex-free, powder-free (Cardinal Esteem(®)), and latex powder-free (Mölnlycke-Biogel(®)) rated highest; however, there were no statistically significant differences in subjective performance ratings across glove types., Conclusions: Given the observed similarities in touch sensitivity and psychomotor performance associated with five different glove types, our results suggest that subjective provider preferences, such as glove comfort, should be balanced against material costs.

Purpose: The results of a study to help identify the best glove protection for health care professionals frequently exposed to cytotoxic agents are reported., Methods: The permeation of 17 cytotoxic drugs through different glove materials and glove combinations was studied under the conditions of simulated dynamic contact (e.g., friction, stretching), a temperature of 37 °C (normal body temperature), different exposure times (30 and 60 minutes), and a 15-minute pretreatment with 70% alcohol or isopropyl alcohol. For 6 drugs, permeability was further evaluated at a temperature of 43 °C with different double-gloving combinations in order to assess the risk of health care worker exposure during the administration of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). All evaluated glove products were provided by one manufacturer. Analytical measurements were performed in triplicate using chromatographic and spectrometric techniques., Results: None of the gloves exhibited permeation exceeding European standard EN 374-3 (1000 ng/cm(2)·min) or American standard ASTM F739-07 (100 ng/cm(2)·min); for a few drugs, glove permeation exceeded ASTM D6978-05 (10 ng/cm(2)·min). The highest permeation rates (66.5 and 36.3 ng/cm(2)·min) were observed with two natural rubber latex products exposed for 60 minutes to carmustine. None of the evaluated double-gloving combinations displayed any detected permeation at 43 °C, confirming that they can be used safely during HIPEC., Conclusion: Gloves evaluated with a dynamic permeation testing device at 37 °C after pretreatment with alcohol or isopropyl alcohol showed permeation rates by selected cytotoxic drugs of <100 ng/cm(2)·min after 30 or 60 minutes of drug exposure. Undergloves alone and glove-glove and glove-underglove combinations showed no detectable permeation in tests performed at 43 °C.

IgE-mediated allergy to natural rubber latex was first noted from rubber gloves in 1979. The initial reports in dermatological journals described contact urticarial reactions; later, severe generalized allergic reactions and asthma were documented. A considerable proportion of the people involved in medical and dental care were found to be sensitized to latex. This article describes and surveys a broad range of primary prevention measures at the local and national levels. Examples are given from paediatrics, dental education, and medical care. National strategies and position papers on latex allergy are presented in which medical professionals, manufacturers and public authorities have cooperated. Special reference is paid to the European work to standardize medical gloves, which led to document EN 455:3., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate glove perforation rate and time and evaluate the factors affecting glove perforation in total hip arthroplasty (THA)., Methods: Nine hundred seventy-nine gloves used in 57 THA procedures were assessed according to the perforation. Forty-four (77.2%) procedures were primary THA and 13 (22.8%) were revision THA. Gloves were changed when perforated, become dirty with blood or blood products, and before bone cementing. All gloves were filled with water at the end of the operation and controlled for perforation. Two hundred and one surgical gloves used during scrubbing and removed after draping the patient were examined as the control group. The location (which finger), number and time of the perforation, surgery type and duration, and distribution of the perforation location according to the surgical team were assessed., Results: Patients' mean age was 62.9 ± 14.6 (range: 33 to 97) years and the mean surgery duration was 162.9 ± 32.0 minutes. Thirty-two glove perforations were noted in 19 of the operations. Of these perforations, 28 belonged to the surgeons and first assistants. There was no significant difference between the dominant or non-dominant hand according to the location of perforations. Perforations in the first and second fingers of the gloves accounted for 81.3% of all perforations. There was no significant difference in terms of number of gloves used, perforation numbers and operation duration between the primary and revision THA procedures. Two perforated gloves (0.99%) were found in the control group and the difference between the number of perforations in the control and study groups was significant (p=0.048)., Conclusion: We recommend the use of two pairs of gloves to avoid the risk of contamination and protect the surgical team from infectious disease in major surgeries like THA. Surgical gloves should be changed when they are excessively contaminated with surgical fluids and the surgeon and first assistant should also change their outer gloves at an average of every 90 minutes.

Surgical gowning and gloving is an essential element of perioperative practice and is undertaken by the members of the anaesthetic and surgical teams involved in a perioperative intervention or procedure. Gowning and gloving will take place immediately after surgical hand antisepsis and the whole process is often referred to as scrubbing, gowning and gloving. Surgical hand antisepsis is defined as 'an extension of hand washing' (AfPP 2007), and 'the antiseptic surgical scrub or antiseptic hand rubs performed before donning sterile attire preoperatively' (AORN 2008). The aim of these processes is to improve the perioperative outcome of interventions and procedures by enhancing and further promoting aseptic techniques (ACORN 2006, AfPP 2007).

Background: Needlestick injuries are always associated with a risk of infection, because these types of punctures may expose healthcare workers to a patient's blood and/or body fluids., Objective: To compare the efficacy of 4 different types of surgical gloves for preventing exposure to blood as a result of needlestick injury., Methods: For simulation of needlestick injury, a circular sample of pork skin was tightened onto a bracket, and a single finger from a medical glove was stretched over the sample. First, a powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating was used to test blood contact. Second, a glove with a patented puncture indication system was used to test blood contact with a double-gloved hand. Third, 2 powder-free latex medical gloves of the same size and hand were combined for double gloving, again to test blood contact. Finally, we tested a glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside. The punctures were carried out using diverse sharp surgical devices that were contaminated with (99)Tc-marked blood. The amount of blood contact was determined from the transmitted radioactivity., Results: For the powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating, a mean volume of 0.048 microL of blood (standard error of the mean [SEM], 0.077 microL) was transferred in punctures with an automated lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. For the glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside, the mean volume of blood transferred was 0.030 microL (SEM, 0.0056 microL) with a single glove and was 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) with 2 gloves. For the glove with the patented puncture indication system, a mean volume of 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) of blood was transferred., Conclusions: Double gloving or the use of a glove with disinfectant can result in a decrease in the volume of blood transferred. Therefore, the use of either of these gloving systems could help to minimize the risk of bloodborne infections for medical staff.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves with standard contact precautions for the control of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and to measure the effect on healthcare workers' (HCWs') hand skin health., Design: Prospective before-after trial., Setting: An 18-bed surgical intensive care unit., Methods: During phase 1 (September 2007 through March 2008) standard contact precautions were used. During phase 2 (March 2008 through September 2008) universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves was used, and no contact precautions. Patients were screened for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). HCW hand hygiene compliance and hand skin health and microbial contamination were assessed. The incidences of device-associated infection and Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) were determined., Results: The rate of compliance with contact precautions (phase 1) was 67%, and the rate of compliance with universal gloving (phase 2) was 78% (P = .01). Hand hygiene compliance was higher during phase 2 than during phase 1 (before patient care, 40% vs 35% of encounters; P = .001; after patient care, 63% vs 51% of encounters; P < .001). No difference was observed in MDRO acquisition. During phases 1 and 2, incidences of device-related infections, in number of infections per 1,000 device-days, were, respectively, 3.7 and 2.6 for bloodstream infection (P = .10), 8.9 and 7.8 for urinary tract infection (P = .10), and 1.0 and 1.1 for ventilator-associated pneumonia (P = .09). The CDI incidence in phase 1 and in phase 2 was, respectively, 2.0 and 1.4 cases per 1,000 patient-days (P = .53). During phase 1, 29% of HCW hand cultures were MRSA positive, compared with 13% during phase 2 (P = .17); during phase 1, 2% of hand cultures were VRE positive, compared with 0 during phase 2 (P = .16). Hand skin health improved during phase 2., Conclusions: Compared with contact precautions, universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves was associated with improved hand hygiene compliance and skin health. No statistically significant change in the rates of device-associated infection, CDI, or patient MDRO acquisition was observed. Universal gloving may be an alternative to contact precautions.

Objective: To investigate the incidence of glove perforation in programmed surgery and compare perforation rates between single-gloves and double-gloves. To evaluate the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during surgery., Method: Randomized and controlled trial. A one year of study period in 2008 consisting of programmed surgeries at the Canary Islands University Hospital. Gloves, randomized into single or double, worn by surgeons, assistants and scrub nurses were analyzed using the Water Leak Test (EN455-1) for 3 min after surgery ended to detect leakage., Results: A total of 1537 gloves were examined during 113 operations, 7 perforations were noticed during the operation and 104 unnoticed, especially in mayor surgery. Of these, 43 perforations (41.3%) occurred while wearing single gloves and 51 (49%) in the outer of a double glove. Only 10 perforations (9.6%) were found in the inner glove. The perforation rate for surgeons was 9.85%, were slightly greater than nurses at 6,91%, but significantly greater that the rate for assistants, 4,04% (p<0.001)., Conclusions: We conclude that double gloving is effective in surgery, inasmuch as the barrier protection was maintained by the inner glove in four out of five cases when the outer glove was inadvertently perforated. Surgical teams must balance the improved safety of double gloving with the possible discomfort and reduced sensitivity., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical gloves are an important phys-ical barrier between surgical staff and the pa-tient. They enable prevention of transmission of microorganisms in both directions, from the sur-geons' hands to the patient and vice versa. Besides the duration of wearing and the role within the surgical team, the integrity of gloves depends on the type of surgery performed. Therefore indicator systems and specific material enforcements of gloves at predilection sites are under discussion and furthermore, recommendations have been made for double-gloving during trauma surgical procedures. Because of varying recommendations regarding the changing interval of gloves, changes are often performed rather late or even not at all. The consequence is an increasing rate of glove perforations and an incalculable risk of infections., Material and Methods: To elaborate an objective recommendation for the time-interval of glove change, the medical literature was searched in the data bases MEDLINE and PubMed., Results: Various imprecise recommendations were expressed for the time point of glove changing rang-ing from 30 min to 180 min. Only in visceral surgery perforation rates had been correlated with the glove wearing time and the following recommendations of glove changing time points had been made: for the surgeon and first assistant at 90 min and for scrub nurses and second assistants at 150 min from the start of the operation., Conclusion: Because the perforation rate and thus the time for glove changing depend on the type of the surgery, the results found in visceral surgery can not be transferred to other surgical special-ties without additional scientific evidence. Further studies are needed that correlate the types of surgical procedures with specific perforation rates in order to provide basis for solid -recommendations helping to improve patients' and medical staff's safety., (Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York.)

Background: In a follow-up to a previous article, which described the approach at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions to establishing a latex-safe environment, subsequent efforts to convert all the sterile gloves to nonlatex products and thereby complete the implementation of a latex-safe program are reported. Before the complete conversion to nonlatex sterile gloves, operating room use had increased to approximately one-third of our total sterile glove use during the preceding four years., New Approaches to Converting to All Nonlatex Sterile Gloves: The final stages of the conversion involved both consistent follow-through with education, training, and personnel involvement at all levels and a change in the culture of the medical facility. New and improved nonlatex glove products were coming to the market, and their costs were decreasing because of increased supply and competition., Glove Trials: Five synthetic neoprene or polyisoprene gloves-two from one manufacturer and three from the second manufacturer-were evaluated in glove trials. Overall, by manufacturer, a similar rate of acceptance among the various sterile nonlatex gloves (74.2% versus 78.1%) was found. However, to ensure that all users were satisfied, contracts were awarded to both vendors. The weekend before the conversion date of May 1, 2007, all old powdered sterile latex gloves were replaced with the new stock of nonlatex sterile gloves., The Conversion Process: Once financial and logistical concerns were addressed, conversion to a latex-safe environment entailed readying the organization for the change in organizational culture. Key factors were (1) general acceptance from all the chiefs of the surgical departments; (2) centralization for all purchases of medical supplies, including sterile gloves, through corporate purchasing; and (3) ongoing education and vigilance.

In 2007, AORN's Recommended Practices Task Force revised the "Recommended practices on prevention of transmissible infections in the perioperative practice setting" to recommend that health care practitioners double-glove during invasive procedures. Previously, AORN had suggested that wearing two pairs of gloves might be indicated for some procedures. Research on the protective effects of double gloving provides compelling evidence that surgical personnel should double-glove during all surgical procedures. Statistics on unreported injuries and conversion rates of HIV and hepatitis B indicate that change is difficult; however, research also suggests that objections to double-gloving can be overcome and a practice change implemented to ensure the safety of health care workers and patients alike.

Objective: Needlestick injuries are the most common injuries that occur among operation room personnel in the health care service. The risk of infection after a needlestick injury during surgery greatly depends on the quantity of pathogenic germs transferred at the point of injury. The aim of this study was to measure the quantity of blood transferred at the point of a percutaneous injury by using radioactively labeled blood., Design: This study was conducted to evaluate the risk of infection through blood contact by simulating surgical needlestick injuries ex vivo. The tests were conducted by puncturing single and double latex gloves with diverse sharp devices and objects that were contaminated with Technetium solution-labeled blood., Results: A mean volume of 0.064 microL of blood was transferred in punctures with the an automatic lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. When the double-gloving indicator technique was used, a mean volume of only 0.011 microL of blood was transferred (median, 0.007 microL); thus, by wearing 2 pairs of gloves, the transferred volume of blood was reduced by a factor of 5.8., Conclusions: The results revealed that double gloving leads to a significant reduction in the quantity of blood transferred during needlestick injury.

This consensus document was prepared by an Italian working group including occupational health professionals involved for many years in the management of glove- and latex-related problems in health care settings. The aim of this document was to address the most significant technical, epidemiological, clinical, environmental and prevention problems related to the use of gloves and latex. The group's recommendations are based on scientific evidence and practical experience but they cannot be considered as final. These topics need to be periodically revised. The following points should be taken into account: glove quality seems to have improved considerably but the information on glove features provided by the manufacturers is often still inaccurate or incomplete; the regulations in force provide that the manufacturers perform tests to supply evidence for the quality of the products but they do not indicate which analytical method should be used and they do not require that the results be reported in the technical data sheets. Thus the manufacturers have only to declare that their products are "in accordance with the rules"; therefore, purchasers should require the manufacturing companies to supply detailed information and verify their reliability. Moreover, the rules should be adapted to higher quality standards; occupational physicians must be involved for the correct choice and purchase of protective gloves; the use of gloves (in particular latex gloves) and latex devices in health care settings should be based on specific criteria: procedures must be available stating which kind of gloves are suitable for specific tasks. When exposure to latex cannot be avoided it is necessary to choose products that have good biocompatibility (e.g., powder free-gloves with low allergen content); once and for all latex powdered gloves should no longer be commercially available! labels for latex devices (including gloves) should report the extractable latex allergen content. Limit values for extractable latex allergens should be established; the use of synthetic rubber gloves should be encouraged since some materials (e.g., neoprene and nitrile rubber) appear to have physical properties and protective efficacy similar to latex, plus good biocompatibility; more studies should be promoted to verify the protective efficacy of new synthetic materials; health care workers should be informed about the advisability and usefulness of using materials other than latex; health care services should not cause additional risks but rather highlight the advantages for workers and patients if the use of latex gloves and devices is minimized.

Objective: To audit glove perforations at laparotomies for gynaecological cancers., Setting: Gynaecological oncology unit, cancer centre, London., Design: Prospective audit., Sample: Twenty-nine laparotomies for gynaecological cancers over 3 months., Methods: Gloves used during laparotomies for gynaecological cancer were tested for perforations by the air inflation and water immersion technique. Parameters recorded were: type of procedure, localisation of perforation, type of gloves, seniority of surgeon, operation time and awareness of perforations., Main Outcome Measure: Glove perforation rate., Results: Perforations were found in gloves from 27/29 (93%) laparotomies. The perforation rate was 61/462 (13%) per glove. The perforation rate was three times higher when the duration of surgery was more than 5 hours. The perforation rate was 63% for primary surgeons, 54.5% for first assistant, 4.7% for second assistant and 40.5% for scrub nurses. Clinical fellows were at highest risk of injury (94%). Two-thirds of perforations were on the index finger or thumb. The glove on the nondominant hand had perforations in 54% of cases. In 50% of cases, the participants were not aware of the perforations. There were less inner glove perforations in double gloves compared with single gloves (5/139 versus 26/154; P = 0.0004, OR = 5.4, 95% CI 1.9-16.7). The indicator glove system failed to identify holes in 44% of cases., Conclusions: Glove perforations were found in most (93%) laparotomies for gynaecological malignancies. They are most common among clinical fellows, are often unnoticed and often not detected by the indicator glove system.

Background: During the eighties a large increase in latex gloves production was observed because of the high demand of gloves in health care settings. In this period a low compliance to minimal quality standard was detected and the poor glove quality was associated with an increase of both irritant and allergic glove-related diseases. Since the second half of nineties health care workers and manufacturers paid more attention to these problems and a trend to a gradual, even if slow, quality improvement was observed. Most frequently powder-free gloves and synthetic gloves were offered on the market., Objectives: The aim of this study was to highlight what has improved about materials and types of sanitary gloves during the last ten years., Methods: The information are based on a review of the scientific literature and practical experiences., Results and Conclusions: Today a large selection of gloves made of different materials are available and they should be addressed to specific tasks. The review of the scientific literature and the analysis of many technical sheets provided by the manufacturers pointed out a trend to a better latex gloves quality (less chemical additives and generally a lower total protein content); sometimes data about a lower extractable latex allergens content are also available. Unfortunately detailed information on glove composition are not usually provided by the manufacturers; purchasers should require the manufacturing company to give comprehensive information and verify their reliability. Moreover the regulation in force should be adapted to higher quality standards. Powder-free and synthetic gloves consumption has improved but the use of synthetic rubber gloves should be further enhanced since some materials (e.g. neoprene and nitrile rubber) have a good biocompatibility and seem to have physical properties and protective efficacy similar to latex. Moreover allergic reactions to synthetic gloves (some chemical additives) are only occasional.

Background: The choice of gloves in the healthcare settings is very important because of the high biological and chemical risks present in these workplaces. In order to rationalize and optimize this choice we must balance cost, quality, security and comfort., Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the rules in force and to point out the relevant role of the Occupational Health Physician in the right choice and purchase of sanitary gloves., Methods: We reviewed the rules in force and the most relevant studies on these topics., Results and Conclusions: The regulations in force provide that the manufacturers must perform tests to supply evidence for the quality of the products but they do not indicate which analytical method should be used and they do not require that the results are reported in the technical sheets. Thus the manufacturers have only to declare to be "in accordance with the rules". Therefore purchasers should require the manufacturing companies to give detailed information and verify their reliability. Moreover rules could be adapted to higher quality standards. The Occupational Health Physician should suggest the purchase of gloves with high biocompatibility, assuring the protection from the risks of specific tasks and suitable for preventing the onset of new glove-related diseases and the relapses in workers with already diagnosed occupational diseases.

Background: The quick evolution of knowledge about latex and, especially, its effectiveness as protection against biological risks on one hand, and, on the other hand, as trigger of cutaneous, respiratory and sistemic allergic diseases, required a marked distinction between conditions in which latex is necessary and conditions in which latex could be substituted by syntetic polymers., Objectives: The aim of this study is to verify protective effectiveness of gloves made of syntetic polymers against biological risks compared with latex gloves which until now have been considered as the best protection., Methods: Literature review., Results: The most recent studies seem to consider neoprene gloves as the safest protection to replace latex in working activities with high biological risk exposure., Conclusion: The literature review marked the lack of studies exclusively focused on glove permeability towards biological agents. It seems therefore necessary to investigate this topic to validate results and to guarantee a suitable protection to workers daily exposed to biological risk.

Background: Hospital work consists of the care and assistance of patients, who therefore constitute another group of individuals besides the workers, which is a completely different situation compared to other workplaces in manufacturing industries., Objectives: Health professionals must know how to use the right devices to protect both the patients and themselves. In the case of protection of the hands, health professionals must also know when to use gloves as "individual protection gloves" and when to use gloves as "medical devices", and comply with both Italian and European Community regulations., Methods and Results: The Hospital of Vimercate (Milan) has drawn up technicalprocedures regarding the various types of gloves used in hospitals, which provide health care workers with accurate information on regulations and protocols, prevention guidelines, safety management recommendations, purchasing specifications, quality controls, correct uses of gloves and devices.

Question Under Study: Prospective clinical study to evaluate the tolerance, ergonomics and glove barrier value (mechanical resistance to breach) of a new surgical glove sandwiching droplets of a disinfecting agent between two layers of a synthetic elastomer (G-VIR) able to inactivate viruses when breached., Methods: 100 surgical procedures were performed by six surgeons wearing G-VIR on 100 patients included after informed consent. Procedures were classified into laparoscopic (n = 28) or open surgery (n = 72); open surgery being subdivided either into superficial (n = 33) and deep (n = 39) or into hernia (n = 32) and non hernia (n = 40). The ergonomics and tolerance of the glove were evaluated by the surgeons using a questionnaire. Patients were clinically evaluated daily during hospitalization and once between the 4th to 6th postoperative week. All used gloves underwent a water leak test to detect any breach., Results: 834 G-VIR gloves were used, 456 by the first surgeon and 378 by the assistant surgeon, resulting in 195 exposures, lasting 288 operator-hours (OH). No adverse effect on patients and/or surgeons linked to G-VIR could be observed. Ergonomics of G-VIR has been evaluated as equivalent as standard double gloving, excepted for donning which was more difficult (P <0.05). The breach rate per glove (BRpG) amounted to 1.8%. According to breach rate per operator-hour (BRpOH), surgical procedures could be categorized in low (laparoscopy), middle (non hernia and hernia superficial) and high (hernia deep) risk procedures., Conclusions: G-VIR gloving offers an excellent mechanical protection, is suitable for daily surgical practice and maybe recommended in high risk surgical procedures.

Background: Acquiring a blood-borne disease is a risk of performing operations. Most data about seroconversion are based on hollow-bore needlesticks. Some studies have examined the inoculation volumes of pure blood delivered by suture needles. There is a lack of data about the effect of double-gloving on contaminant transmission in less viscous fluids that are not prone to coagulation., Study Design: We used enzymatic colorimetry to quantify the volume of inoculation delivered by a suture needle that was coated with an aqueous contaminant. Substrate color change was measured using a microplate reader. Both cutting and tapered suture needles were tested against five different glove types and differing numbers of glove layers (from zero to three)., Results: One glove layer removed 97% of contaminant from tapered needles and 65% from cutting needles, compared with the no-glove control data. Additional glove layers did not significantly improve contaminant removal from tapered needles (p > 0.05). For the cutting needle, 2 glove layers removed 91% of contaminant, which was significantly better than a single glove (p = 0.002). Three glove layers did not afford statistically significant additional protection (p = 0.122). There were no statistically significant differences between glove types (p = 0.41)., Conclusions: With an aqueous needle contaminant, a single glove layer removes contaminant from tapered needles as effectively as multiple glove layers. For cutting needles, double-glove layering offers superior protection. There is no advantage to triple-glove layering. A surgeon should double-glove for maximum safety. Additionally, a surgeon should take advantage of other risk-reduction strategies, such as sharps safety, risk management, and use of sharpless instrumentation when possible.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the rigid application of a sterile protocol for shunt placement was applicable on a routine basis and allowed the reduction of shunt infections (SI) in children., Materials and Methods: Since 2001, a rigid sterile protocol for shunt placement in children using neither antibiotic-impregnated catheters nor laminar airflow was prospectively applied at Erasme Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. For assessing the protocol efficacy before continuation, we preliminarily analyzed the results of the first 100 operated children (43 females, 57 males, 49 aged <12 months; 115 consecutive shunt placement/revision procedures). All procedures were performed by the same senior surgeon, one assistant, one circulating nurse, one anesthesiologist. The sterile protocol was rigidly imposed to these four staff members: uniformed surgical technique; limited implant and skin edge manipulation; minimized human circulation in the room; scheduling surgery as first morning operation; avoiding postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak; double gloving; procedures of less than 30-min duration; systemic antibiotics prophylaxis. We analyzed separately: (1) children carrying an increased risk of SI (n = 38) due to preoperative external ventricular drainage, CSF leak, meningitis, glucocorticoids, chemotherapy; (2) children aged <12 months; (3) procedures for shunt revision., Results: Errors in protocol application were recorded in 71/115 procedures. They were mainly done by non-surgical staff, decreased with time and were medically justified in some young children. Surprisingly, no SI occurred (follow-up, 4 to 70 months). One child developed an appendicitis with peritonitis (Streptococcus faecalis) after 6 months. No SI was found. After peritonitis was cured, shunt reinsertion was uneventful., Conclusion: These preliminary results suggest that a uniform and drastic sterile surgical technique for shunt placement: (1) can be rigidly applied on a routine basis; (2) can lower the early SI rate below 1%; (3) might have a stronger impact to reduce SI than using antibiotic-impregnated catheters and optimizing the operative environment such as using laminar airflow and reducing the non-surgical staff. This last issue will be evaluated further in the present ongoing protocol.

Background: The increasing prevalence of blood-borne viral diseases has drawn attention to the barrier between the surgical personnel's hands and the patients body fluids during surgery. At present, the typical practice is to use double gloving in orthopaedic surgery, and single gloving in other types of surgery. The main purpose of our study was to estimate and compare the perforation risk in different categories of surgery., Material and Methods: In a series of 655 surgical operations covering 5 main categories of surgery, all detected glove perforations were recorded and analysed., Results: Perforations were found in 203 out of 655 operations (31%). The observed perforation frequency was 44.5% in gastrointestinal surgery, 34.7% in orthopaedic surgery, 31.1% in gynaecology, 18.6% in vascular surgery and 9.2% in general surgery. In some subcategories, the frequencies were even higher., Interpretation: In several categories of surgery, we found high perforation frequencies. Perforations in single gloves are often not detected during operations. This may increase the risk of transmission of blood-borne infections, particularly because the time of exposure may be long. Double indicator gloves make the intra-operative detection of perforations easier. Also double gloving is known to significantly reduce the perforation risk. The use of double indicator gloves is recommended in all categories of surgery.

Purpose: Surgeons have noticed an increased incidence of finger lacerations associated with arthroscopic knot tying with solid-core suture material. This study examines glove perforations and finger lacerations during arthroscopic shoulder surgery., Methods: We collected 400 surgical gloves from 50 consecutive arthroscopic shoulder repair procedures using No. 2 solid-core sutures. Two surgeons using double gloves were involved in every case, with one being responsible for tying all knots. Powder-free latex gloves were worn in all cases. Knots consisted of a sliding stitch of the surgeon's preference followed by 3 half-hitches via a knot-pusher instrument. All gloves were inspected grossly and then tested for tears with an electroconductivity meter., Results: The knot-tying surgeon had significantly more glove tears than the control (P < .01). Tears were localized to the radial side of the index finger of the glove at the distal interphalangeal joint in all cases. Of the tying surgeon's gloves, 68 (34%) were found to have tears. These included 17 inner gloves (17%) and 51 outer gloves (51%). If an inner glove was torn, the corresponding outer glove was torn in all cases. A mean of 3.96 knots were tied in each case. There was a significantly higher incidence of inner glove tears when more than 3 knots were tied (P < .03). There was no significant difference in glove tears between suture types. Finger lacerations did occur in the absence of glove tears. However, in the presence of an inner glove tear, there was a statistically significant association with a finger laceration at the corresponding level (P < .03)., Conclusions: Intraoperative glove tears and subsequent finger lacerations occur with a high frequency when arthroscopic knots are tied with solid-core suture material. Risk can potentially be minimized by frequent glove changes or use of more durable, less penetrable gloves., Clinical Relevance: This study addresses surgeon and patient safety during arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule to improve the barrier quality of medical gloves marketed in the United States. The rule will accomplish this by reducing the current acceptable quality levels (AQLs) for leaks and visual defects observed during FDA testing of medical gloves. By reducing the AQLs for medical gloves, FDA will also harmonize its AQLs with consensus standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and ASTM International (ASTM).

The aim of this study was to compare double gloves (DGs) with single gloves (SGs) during orthopedic and trauma surgery in prevention of blood contact between patients and surgeons. DGs and SGs were collected after orthopedic operations, tested for size, site, and number of perforations. Medical records were reviewed for age, sex, type of operation, duration, and postoperative wound infection. Data were compared using t-test with level of statistical significance at P < 0.05. Five hundred seven operations yielded 1204 DGs and 830 pairs SGs. In DGs, perforations were detected in 220 outer glove and 39 inner glove (10.7%). In SGs, 226 perforations were detected (13.3%). The incidence of perforations in inner gloves of the double indicator glove was 1.6% (P < 0.001). During surgery, perforations were recognized in DGs in 67% compared with 12% in SGs (P < 0.005). This study confirms that DGs form an efficient barrier between patients and surgeons.