Cargando…

Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre

BACKGROUND: Sterility of the operative field during surgery is imperative in reducing the risk of infection. Most commonly, double gloves are worn by surgeons. When contamination occurs, the top gloves are changed intra-operatively. No studies have investigated which glove changing technique is best...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boekel, Pamela, Ek, Eugene T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8980212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35392064
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.839040
_version_ 1784681339167965184
author Boekel, Pamela
Ek, Eugene T.
author_facet Boekel, Pamela
Ek, Eugene T.
author_sort Boekel, Pamela
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sterility of the operative field during surgery is imperative in reducing the risk of infection. Most commonly, double gloves are worn by surgeons. When contamination occurs, the top gloves are changed intra-operatively. No studies have investigated which glove changing technique is best. Therefore, in this study, we aim to identify which top glove changing technique causes the least surface contamination. METHODS: Glitterbug™ (UV fluorescent powder) was applied to the top gloves of 3 individuals who changed their top gloves according to a randomised method – Method 1: 3 pairs worn, remove the outer pair; Method 2: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, replace unassisted; and Method 3: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, and replace assisted by a scrub nurse. A blinded investigator inspected for Glitterbug™ contamination under UV light. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten trials were performed and two types of contamination were identified, namely, direct contact and airborne spread. For absolute contamination, Method 1 had 59/64 (92%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 49/65 (75%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 64/81 (79%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant (p = 0.031). For direct contamination only, Method 1 had 38/64 (59%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 24/65 (37%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 20/81 (25%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Method 2 had a statistically significant lower contamination rate overall, with Method 3 having the lowest direct contamination rate. We believe that wearing 2 gloves, removing the top glove and replacing it, either assisted or unassisted, could decrease surface contamination of the sterile field.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8980212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89802122022-04-06 Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre Boekel, Pamela Ek, Eugene T. Front Surg Surgery BACKGROUND: Sterility of the operative field during surgery is imperative in reducing the risk of infection. Most commonly, double gloves are worn by surgeons. When contamination occurs, the top gloves are changed intra-operatively. No studies have investigated which glove changing technique is best. Therefore, in this study, we aim to identify which top glove changing technique causes the least surface contamination. METHODS: Glitterbug™ (UV fluorescent powder) was applied to the top gloves of 3 individuals who changed their top gloves according to a randomised method – Method 1: 3 pairs worn, remove the outer pair; Method 2: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, replace unassisted; and Method 3: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, and replace assisted by a scrub nurse. A blinded investigator inspected for Glitterbug™ contamination under UV light. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten trials were performed and two types of contamination were identified, namely, direct contact and airborne spread. For absolute contamination, Method 1 had 59/64 (92%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 49/65 (75%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 64/81 (79%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant (p = 0.031). For direct contamination only, Method 1 had 38/64 (59%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 24/65 (37%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 20/81 (25%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Method 2 had a statistically significant lower contamination rate overall, with Method 3 having the lowest direct contamination rate. We believe that wearing 2 gloves, removing the top glove and replacing it, either assisted or unassisted, could decrease surface contamination of the sterile field. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8980212/ /pubmed/35392064 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.839040 Text en Copyright © 2022 Boekel and Ek. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Boekel, Pamela
Ek, Eugene T.
Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre
title Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre
title_full Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre
title_fullStr Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre
title_full_unstemmed Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre
title_short Contamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre
title_sort contamination associated with glove changing techniques in the operating theatre
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8980212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35392064
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.839040
work_keys_str_mv AT boekelpamela contaminationassociatedwithglovechangingtechniquesintheoperatingtheatre
AT ekeugenet contaminationassociatedwithglovechangingtechniquesintheoperatingtheatre