Intraoperative glove perforation--single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination. Incidence of glove perforations in gastrointestinal surgery and the protective effect of double gloves: a prospective, randomised controlled study. Glove perforations in open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery: the feasibility of double gloving. Glove perforation rate in vascular surgery--a comparison between single and double gloving. Efficacy of double versus single gloving in protecting the operating team. Does double gloving protect surgical staff from skin contamination during plastic surgery? Double gloving as self protection in abdominal surgery. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves. Comparison of perforation between single and double-gloving in perineorrhaphy after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
Surgeons have the highest risk of contact with patients' blood and body fluids, and breaches in gloving material may expose operating room staff to risk of infections. This prospective randomised study was done to assess the effectiveness of the practice of double gloving compared with single gloving in decreasing finger contamination during surgery. In 66 consecutive surgical procedures studied, preoperative skin abrasions were detected on the hands of 17.4% of the surgeons. In the double gloving pattern, 32 glove perforations were observed, of which 22 were in the outer glove and 10 in the inner glove. Only four outer glove perforations had matching inner glove perforations, thus indicating that in 82% of cases when the outer glove is perforated the inner glove will protect the surgeon's hand from contamination. The presence of visible skin contamination was also higher in perforation with the single gloving pattern (42.1%) than with the double gloving pattern (22.7%). An overwhelming majority of glove perforations (83.3%) went unnoticed. Double gloving was accepted by the majority of surgeons, especially with repeated use. It is recommended that double gloves are used routinely in all surgical procedures in view of the significantly higher protection it provides. To investigate the incidence of glove perforations during various types of gastrointestinal surgery, to record the incidence of blood contamination of the hands, and to evaluate the protective effect of double gloving.
                Randomised prospective trial.
                University hospital, Denmark.
                566 pairs of gloves tested on surgeons, assistants, and scrub nurses.
                The participants were allocated to wear either single gloves or Indicator double gloves.
                The number of glove perforations and the incidence of blood contamination of the hands.
                The perforation rate in single gloves was 53/306 (17%), and that of both outer and inner Indicator gloves at corresponding sites was 6/260 (2%) (p < 0.0001). Double gloving reduced the rate of blood contamination of the hands among surgeons from 15/115 (13%) to 2/98 (2%) (p < 0.005).
                The use of Indicator double gloves is recommended in gastrointestinal surgery because of the appreciable protection against blood contamination that they offer. According to the traditional view, the glove protects the patient from the bacterial growth of the surgeons' hands and doing so prevents infections. Today, with growing incidences of HIV and Hepatitis B and C, surgical gloves are also important as protection for the surgeon. We compared the safety of double indicator gloves to standard single surgical gloves by investigating how often surgical gloves are punctured in laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal surgery.
                As study material we gathered all gloves that had been used in gastrointestinal surgery in Satakunta Central Hospital during two months. 814 gloves from 274 operations were tested by using standardized water filling test method.
                In open surgery 67 gloves out of 694 had been punctured (9.6 percent). Puncture occurred in 22.5 percent of operations (53 out of 236). During open surgery 24 holes out of 35 were undetected with single gloves (69 percent). With double indicator gloves, only 3 out of 31 holes were unnoticed (10 percent). Long duration of operation increased the risk of puncture. In laparoscopic operations 4 gloves out of 120 had been perforated (3.3 percent).
                Double surgical gloves give markedly better protection in surgery. This is important especially in high risk operations. In surgery intact gloves act as a sterile barrier between surgeon and patient. The impermeable gloves protect the surgeon from bloodborne pathogens such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. On the other hand, the surgical wound is protected from micro-organisms from the skin of the surgeon. One objective of this study was to compare puncture rates between the double gloving color indication system and single-use gloves and the other to determine the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during the course of vascular surgical operations.
                The study material comprised all gloves used in vascular surgical operations at Satakunta Central Hospital for a period of two months. The analysis was made by the glove type in a prospective and randomised manner. Gloves were tested immediately after the surgical procedure using the approved standardized water-leak method. With this method the glove is filled with water using a special filling tube, and the water-filled glove is then checked for two minutes to detect any holes. The gloves used in this study were either double gloves with indicator, or the standard glove used at our hospital.
                In 73 operations altogether 200 gloves were tested, half of them were double gloves and half were single gloves. The perforation occurred in the double gloves 3 times and with single gloves 12 times. The overall perforation rate was 15 out of 200 gloves (7.5%). The detection of perforation during surgery was 60%. Most frequently the perforation was located in the second finger of the left hand, 9 out of 15 perforations.
                In view of the critical importance of safety at work both transmitting the pathogens from the skin of the surgeon to the wound and transmitting the bloodborne pathogens from the patient to the surgeon, it is very important to use double gloving at least in operations where there is a high risk of glove perforation. 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. In a randomized study, the effectiveness of double gloving in maintaining an intact barrier between the patient and the hands of the surgical staff during plastic surgery operations was tested. For 2 months, the surgical staff of a plastic surgery unit randomly wore single or double gloves during all elective surgical procedures. At the end of the operations, the gloves were tested by the water filling test. A total of 1092 gloves were examined. Twelve accidental injuries were noticed during the operations, and 67 unnoticed perforations occurred. The data suggest that the risk of perforation and exposure increases with the length and complexity of the procedures. It was concluded that double gloving is effective in plastic surgery, inasmuch as the barrier protection was maintained by the inner glove in two of three cases in which the outer glove was perforated inadvertently. Plastic surgeons must balance the improved security of double gloving with the possible discomfort or reduced sensitivity. To investigate if double gloving can reduce the rate of perforation of glove barriers during abdominal surgery.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                County hospital, Denmark.
                400 glove barriers from principal surgeons and first assistants used at consecutive abdominal operations.
                Each participant was randomised to wear either a pair of single or double gloves.
                The number of perforated glove barriers in the two study groups.
                40 single glove barriers perforated (20%) and in 8 of the double glove group both gloves perforated (4%) (p < 0.001). Glove barriers on non-dominant hands were more often perforated than those on dominant hands, and both the duration of the operation and the seniority of the doctor were associated with increased rates of perforation.
                Double gloving reduces the rate of perforation of glove barriers during abdominal surgery and thereby the number of episodes in which transmission of disease from patient to surgeon would be possible. The spread of viral diseases such as HIV has highlighted the importance of protecting medical personnel against contamination from blood. We have assessed the frequency of the perforation of surgical gloves during orthopaedic and trauma surgery and compared the efficiency of single and double gloving. We examined all the gloves used by surgeons for a period of two months. There were 1769 gloves from 349 operations. Perforations occurred in 18.5% of conventional and 5.8% of arthroscopic procedures. The risk of contamination from blood was 13 times higher when using single compared with double gloves. Surprisingly, the combination of two regular gloves was much less efficient than double indicator gloves when comparing the rate of perforation of the inner glove when the outer had been damaged (24% vs 4.9%; p = 0.02). We recommend double gloving in orthopaedic surgery in general and also in long arthroscopic procedures. A prospective randomized controlled trial of single and double-gloving methods in perineorrhaphy after vaginal delivery was performed between August 1, and September 30, 1996 at Rajavithi Hospital to compare glove perforation between both methods. We examined 1,316 individual gloves in the double-gloving method and 742 individual gloves in the single-gloving method. These gloves were tested by immersing in water. The glove perforation rate was 5.2% (107 of 2,058). There was significant reduction in the glove perforation rate of double-inner gloves (2.7%) compared with the single-gloving group (6.7%). The perforation rate of the double outer-gloves group was 5.9%. The perforation rate in the matched outer and inner perforation was found only in 0.3% (2 of 658). The double-gloving method had a significant benefit in protection of the surgeon's hand from the exposure to blood compared with the single-gloving method.
There is no direct evidence that additional glove protection worn by the surgical team reduces surgical site infections in patients, however the review has insufficient power for this outcome.
The addition of a second pair of surgical gloves significantly reduces perforations to innermost gloves. Triple gloving, knitted outer gloves and glove liners also significantly reduce perforations to the innermost glove. Perforation indicator systems results in significantly more innermost glove perforations being detected during surgery.