Blunt needles for the reduction of needlestick injuries during cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of glove perforation as a proxy for needlestick injuries between blunt and sharp needles used during cesarean-delivery closure and to survey physician satisfaction with blunt needles. METHODS: Patients requiring cesarean delivery were assigned randomly to receive closure with either blunt (study group) or sharp needles (control group). Patient demographics, operator experience, and other clinical variables were collected. Physicians reported any percutaneous injuries and were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the assigned needles. Glove perforation was determined using a validated water-test method. Differences between patient groups were tested using chi and Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Student t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. RESULTS: There were 194 patients enrolled in the trial: 97 in the control group and 97 in the study group. There were no statistical differences between groups in patient demographics. There were no differences between groups in clinical variables, type of cesarean delivery, or experience level of the surgeon. There was a significant reduction in total glove perforation rate for the primary surgeon with blunt needles (7.2%) compared with sharp needles (17.5%) (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.89) as well as for the assistant surgeon (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.71). There was poor correlation between reported perforations and those detected by water test (R=0.3). Physicians reported that they were not as satisfied with blunt needles compared with sharp needles (P=.001). CONCLUSION: There was a significant decrease in the rate of glove perforation for surgeons and assistants performing cesarean-delivery closure with blunt needles. Assistant surgeons had the greatest reduction in glove perforations. However, physicians reported decreased satisfaction performing the surgery with blunt needles. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00844636 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

The use of blunt needles does not reduce glove perforations during obstetrical laceration repair.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the rate of glove perforation for blunt and sharp needles used during obstetrical laceration repair. A secondary aim was to assess physician satisfaction with blunt needles. STUDY DESIGN: This was an institutional review board-approved, randomized, prospective trial. Patients with obstetric lacerations were randomized to repair with either blunt or sharp needles. Patient demographics, operator experience, and other clinical variables were collected. Physicians reported any percutaneous injuries and were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the assigned needles. Glove perforation was determined using a validated water test method. RESULTS: There were 438 patients enrolled in the trial: 221 in the control group and 217 in the study group. There was no statistical difference between groups in patient demographics, clinical variables, severity of laceration, or experience level of the surgeon. There was no difference in the glove perforation rate between blunt and sharp needles (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.95). There was poor correlation between reported perforations and those detected by water test (R(2) = 0.33). The physicians reported that blunt needles were more difficult to use than sharp needles (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the rate of surgical glove perforation for blunt, compared with sharp, needles used during vaginal laceration repair. Physicians also reported increased difficulty performing the repair with blunt needles.