Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery
Journal Title: | The American journal of surgery 2012, Vol.204 (2), p.210-215 |
Main Author: | Guo, Yue Ping, Ph.D |
Other Authors: | Wong, Po Ming, M.S , Li, Yi, Ph.D , Or, Peggy Pui Lai, M.S |
Format: |
![]() |
Language: |
English |
Subjects: | |
Quelle: | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
Publisher: | New York, NY: Elsevier Inc |
ID: | ISSN: 0002-9610 |
Zum Text: |
SendSend as email
Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View

recordid: | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027370717 |
title: | Is double-gloving really protective? A comparison between the glove perforation rate among perioperative nurses with single and double gloves during surgery |
format: | Article |
creator: |
|
subjects: |
|
ispartof: | The American journal of surgery, 2012, Vol.204 (2), p.210-215 |
description: | 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. |
language: | eng |
source: | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
identifier: | ISSN: 0002-9610 |
fulltext: | fulltext |
issn: |
|
url: | Link |
@attributes |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PrimoNMBib |
|