Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery

• Published in: The American journal of surgery 2012-08, Vol.204 (2), p.210-215
• Main Authors: Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D, Wong, Po Ming, M.S, Li, Yi, Ph.D, Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdominal surgery; Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Blood-Borne Pathogens; Double gloving; Equipment Failure - statistics & numerical data; Female; General aspects; Glove perforation rate; Gloves; Gloves, Surgical; Health participants; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nurses; Nursing Staff, Hospital; Orthopedics; Perioperative nurses; Perioperative Nursing; Prevention and actions; Prospective Studies; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Standard deviation; Surgery; Surgical Procedures, Operative - statistics & numerical data
• ISSN: 0002-9610; 1879-1883
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.017

Abstract Background Surgical teams rely on surgical gloves as a barrier to protect themselves against blood-borne pathogenic infections during surgery. Double-gloving is adopted by surgeons to tackle the problem of glove perforation. Nevertheless, double-gloving is not practiced commonly by operating room nurses and there are only limited studies about double-gloving that targets only perioperative nurses. The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of double-gloving in protecting perioperative nurses by comparing the frequency of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving groups. Methods A prospective and randomized study was performed. Nurses were assigned randomly to single-gloved and double-gloved groups for comparison of the glove perforation rate. Water-leakage and air-inflation tests were used to detect glove perforation. Results Glove perforations was detected in 10 of 112 sets of single-gloves (8.9%) and 12 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group (11.3%). There was no inner double-glove perforation (0%). Glove perforations were found in 6 and 4 of the 112 sets of single-gloves for the first assistants (5.36%) and the scrub nurses (3.57%), and 5 and 7 of 106 sets of outer gloves in the double-gloved group for the first assistants (4.72%) and the scrub nurses (6.60%), respectively. The average occurrence of perforation was 69.8 minutes (range, 20–110 min) after the beginning of surgery. The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the left middle finger (42%) and the left ring finger (33.3%). Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, double-gloving is indeed effective in protecting operating room nurses against blood-borne pathogen exposure. It should be introduced as a routine practice.