Effectiveness of double-gloving method on prevention of surgical glove perforations and blood contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To determine the effectiveness of the double-gloving method on preventing surgical glove perforation and blood contamination compared with single gloving. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Seven electronic databases were searched including: Embase, CINAHL, OVID, Medline, Pubmed, Web of Science, and Foreign Medical Literature Retrieval Service in March 2020. REVIEW METHOD: Our systematic review and meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Risk of bias of Cochrane Handbook (Version 5.1.0) was applied to evaluate the study quality. Revman 5.3 was used to calculate the effect size of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis with forest plot and funnel plot was performed to compare the rate of surgical glove perforation and to determine the published bias, respectively. This review has been registered with ID: CRD42020189694 on the web site of PROSPERO. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy of double gloving on reducing surgical glove perforation were identified and a total of 7090 gloves were tested. After analyzing the pooled data, we identified that the rate of surgical glove perforation in the double-gloving group was lower than that of single gloving with statistical significance (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89, p < .05). It was statistically significant that surgical glove perforation was lower in the double-inner gloves as well as matched outer-inner perforated gloves compared with that of single glove (OR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.07, p < .05). CONCLUSION: Findings of this systematic review demonstrate that double gloving could reduce the rate of surgical-glove perforation. Meanwhile, the risk of being contaminated by a blood-borne pathogen during surgery could be reduced by wearing double gloves. We strongly suggest that surgical team members when operating should wear double gloves to protect themselves and reduce the risk of occupational blood exposure. IMPACT: The necessity of double gloving for preventing blood contamination was demonstrated. The rate of surgical glove perforation is statistically significant in double-gloving group compared to single gloving. Double gloving could reduce the risk of being contaminated during surgery by blood-borne pathogen. Evidence is provided for surgical team and decision makers that double gloving could reduce occupational exposure.

Double gloving of disposable nitrile gloves exposed to diethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether.

Double gloving of disposable gloves is now commonplace in healthcare settings when extra protection is needed against aqueous solutions and especially for antineoplastic drugs in isotonic aqueous media. In the present study, an ASTM F739 2.54 cm cell with closed-loop water collection without recirculation at 35 °C in a moving tray water bath was used to test the permeation of diethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether (DGBE) through four types of disposable nitrile gloves that were singly and doubly layered in the permeation cell. Samples were taken over 8 hr for capillary gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer quantitation. The breakthrough time (tn) at a permeation of 250 ng/cm2 increased as thickness increased for single layers, but the steady-state permeation rates Ps in µg/cm2/min did not always decrease with increasing thickness. The double-layer tn, Ps and thickness were also more variable relative to a single layer. The thinnest glove with 80 [Formula: see text]m thickness showed a tn = 0-5 min whereas its double layer was 15-20 min. The thickest glove of 132 µm exhibited a tn = 10-15 min but its double layer was tn = 45-55 min. The adjusted double-layer average tn divided by the adjusted single-layer average tn was 4.0 ± 0.8. The adjusted average single-layer Ps divided by the adjusted average double-layer Ps was 3.5 ± 0.8. Other results showed that the average glove swelling was <10%; microscopic and leak testing indicated no penetration and reflectance infrared analysis also showed no chemical changes on the inside glove surfaces. Thus, the permeations were adjudged to obey Fick's First Law of Diffusion to allow calculation of diffusion coefficients D in cm2/min. The average single-layer D divided by the average double-layer D was 1.3 ± 0.2. Double gloving in the field is therefore also probably more protective than single gloving against DGBE for the four types of disposable nitrile gloves tested.

Evaluation of sterile glove usage on digital tactile sensitivity using the Grating Orientation Task.

Introduction: Surgical glove use may be associated with a decrease in tactile sensitivity, with thicker gloves or double-gloving techniques further altering sensation. This study evaluates digital tactile sensitivity by use of a Grating Orientation Task (GOT) with multiple sterile gloving techniques (no gloves, single standard gloving, double standard gloving, orthopedic gloves, and micro-thickness gloves). Methods: Each participant performed the GOT at increasing grating widths until correctly noting orientation in ≥8 of 10 trials with multiple glove types or double-gloving technique. Glove order was randomly assigned and participants were blinded to the orientation and dome size. Results: All gloves except micro-thickness gloves showed increased threshold sensitivity values (i.e. worse fingertip sensitivity) when compared to control (micro:control, p = 0.105, others:control, p < 0.05). Single-layer gloves showed no significant difference in sensitivity when compared to orthopedic (p = 0.06) or double-layer latex gloves (p = 0.26). Discussion: Standard latex gloves decreased fingertip sensitivity when evaluated with the GOT. Double-layer and orthopedic latex gloves do not decrease sensitivity when compared with single-layer gloving. Micro-thickness gloves may provide similar tactile sensitivity to no surgical glove.

Surgical experience and different glove wearing conditions affect tactile sensibility.

Background: The fingers' tactile sensibility is essential in surgery, especially in microsurgery. Therefore, surgeons seeking to improve their performance often prefer certain glove brands and wearing habits. There is the need of objectively testing these glove wearing conditions and determine the effect of surgical experience with regard to tactile sensibility by comparing surgeons with non-surgeons. Methods: This cross-sectional single-center pilot-study was conducted between June and August 2021. Two groups of 27 surgeons and 27 non-surgeons underwent two-point-discrimination (2PD) and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing (SWMT) of both index fingers with bare hands and with wearing six different brands of surgical gloves. Different wearing conditions, such as single-gloving, double-gloving, well-fitted, under- and oversized gloves, were evaluated within and between the groups. Results: Most glove types decreased tactile sensibility (2PD and SWMT) of surgeons and non-surgeons. Interestingly, the thinnest gloves showed similar 2PD values to bare hands in both groups. Double-gloving negatively impacted SWMT, without influencing 2PD. Undersized gloves showed better 2PD and SWMT than well-fitted gloves, while oversized gloves showed no tactile drawbacks. With bare hands and certain glove conditions, the surgeons' 2PD and SWMT was significantly better than the non-surgeons', indicating a positive effect of surgical experience on tactile sensibility. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the positive impact of surgical experience on tactile sensibility, as demonstrated by the surgeons. The sensibility of the gloved hand varies on the surgical glove type, but favors thinner gloves, single gloving (rather than double gloving) and undersized or well-fitted gloves.

The Effect of Intraoperative Glove Choice on Carpal Tunnel Pressure.

Introduction The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of surgical gown and glove wear on carpal tunnel pressure. The authors hypothesized that gowning and gloving is associated with an increase in carpal tunnel pressure in cadaveric specimens wearing appropriately sized gloves. Furthermore, they hypothesized that increased glove thickness, double gloving, and smaller-than-appropriately sized gloves would all serve to increase carpal tunnel pressure. Materials and Methods Baseline carpal tunnel pressure measurements were obtained in 11 cadaveric specimens. Each specimen was subsequently gowned and gloved. Carpal tunnel pressures were obtained for each specimen fitted with four different types of gloves in four scenarios: (1) appropriately sized gloves, (2) one full-size smaller, (3) one full-size larger, and (4) double gloved. Results Mean carpal tunnel baseline value was 3.5 mm Hg. Appropriately sized single-glove wear more than doubled baseline carpal tunnel pressure. Double gloving and smaller-than-appropriately sized glove wear more than tripled baseline values. Among the single-glove subgroup, the thickest gloves (ortho) were associated with the highest increase in pressure from baseline values. Conclusion Glove selection can have repercussions related to carpal tunnel pressure. Susceptible surgeons should consider these factors when making decisions regarding intraoperative glove wear.

Use of a Double Gloving Technique to Decrease Cross-Contamination by Anesthesia Providers.

The purpose of this project was to determine the impact of double gloving during the induction of general anesthesia on the incidence of cross-contamination by the anesthesia provider. In a representative sample of anesthesia providers, induction sequences were initially evaluated using the providers' standard technique (group 0). The same providers were reevaluated after being educated on the double gloving technique (group 1). One month later the providers were reevaluated to identify which ones continued the double gloving technique (group 2). For each sequence, all providers were asked to complete a general anesthesia induction following a standard sequence (n = 30). Every anesthesia workstation was cleaned before each induction using the same supplies, and a black light was used to iden-tify any contamination. The workstations included the anesthesia circuit/face mask, breathing bag, anesthesia machine (adjustable pressure-limiting valve/vaporizer), medication cart, intravenous (IV) stopcock, and IV fluid bag. Each group's workstation was evaluated before and after induction for foreign body changes. The 3 groups were compared using a related-samples Friedman test, which demonstrated that the double gloving technique significantly decreased contamination in most areas studied (P < .01). Use of a double gloving technique decreased cross-contamination by greater than 50%.

Gender differences in practicing standard precautions against blood-borne pathogens among surgeons at a tertiary care center: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are at an increased risk of contracting blood-borne pathogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate gender difference, surgical position, surgical experience, and subspecialty regarding surgeons' compliance to standard precautions. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was performed using a purposive sampling. A total of 241 surgeons were surveyed from June 2017 to January 2018. RESULTS: In total, 179 (74.3%) males and 62 (25.7%) females completed the questionnaire. The gender difference was evident when the type of surgery was extremely important in influencing the decision on wearing double gloves (DGs); 108 (60.3%) male surgeons versus 27 (43.5%) female surgeons (P = 0.022). Although a total of 17 (30.3%) surgeons reported being extremely and very concerned about contracting human immunodeficiency virus through their work, they had never tried DG (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the decision of wearing DG was affected by several factors. Surgeons' decision to wear DG was influenced by the type of surgery. This study showed that most surgeons reported lack of adherence to barrier precaution measures.

The Effects of Double Gloving on Microsurgical Skills.

Objective To determine whether double gloving would negatively affect participants' ability to perform a simulated microsurgical task. Study Design Randomized single-blinded controlled crossover trial. Setting Temporal bone laboratory of an academic otolaryngology department. Subjects and Methods This study involved the simulated insertion of a stapes prosthesis into a model of the ossicular chain under microscopy. Forty-one participants were recruited from our medical and dental school and randomized into 2 groups. All groups began by performing the task without gloves, acting as their own control arm. The first group (A) then performed the task with a single pair of gloves while the second group (B) next performed the task with 2 pairs of gloves. The groups then switched gloving methods. The total time taken to perform the task was recorded for each participant and the results subjected to a series of statistical measures. Results This study found a statistically significant difference in the average time taken to complete the task between the "no-glove" arm of the study and both experimental groups but no difference between the 2 experimental groups. Likewise, no significant difference was found between the 2 experimental groups when comparing the rate at which they improved at performing the task. Conclusion These data suggest that wearing 2 pairs of surgical gloves does not negatively affect the speed at which a microsurgical procedure may be performed, lending support to the practice of double gloving, even in the setting of microsurgical fine motor tasks.

Sharps injury prevention guidance among health care professionals: A comparison between self-reported and observed compliance.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to compare self-report and observation methods for measuring compliance with double gloving (DG) and the hands-free technique (HFT). METHODS: The participants were 81 health care professionals (29 nurses, 52 doctors) working in 22 operating rooms in a tertiary hospital in Busan (South Korea). All participants were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire. Additionally, compliance with DG and the HFT was observed from March-May 2014. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ(2) test, and κ statistic using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: The participants who always complied with DG and the HFT were 30.9% and 7.7% according to the self-report method, respectively, and 30.9% and 0.0% according to direct observation, respectively. The κ value comparing the self-report and observation methods was 0.557 for all study participants, 0.259 for nurses, and 0.668 for doctors for DG. The κ value was 0.027 for all participants, 0.131 for nurses, and 0.020 for doctors for the HFT. CONCLUSION: DG compliance and HFT compliance showed moderate and low levels of agreement between the 2 methods, respectively. Doctors showed higher agreement than nurses between the 2 methods for DG compliance but similar to nurses for HFT compliance. Therefore, the levels of compliance with DG may be measured by either the self-report or observation methods for doctors.

Implementing AORN recommended practices for sharps safety.

Prevention of percutaneous sharps injuries in perioperative settings remains a challenge. Occupational transmission of bloodborne pathogens, not only from patients to health care providers but also from health care providers to patients, is a significant concern. Legislation and position statements geared toward ensuring the safety of patients and health care workers have not resulted in significantly reduced sharps injuries in perioperative settings. Awareness and understanding of the types of percutaneous injuries that occur in perioperative settings is fundamental to developing an effective sharps injury prevention program. The AORN "Recommended practices for sharps safety" clearly delineates evidence-based recommendations for sharps injury prevention. Perioperative RNs can lead efforts to change practice for the safety of patients and perioperative team members by promoting the elimination of sharps hazards; the use of engineering, work practice, and administrative controls; and the proper use of personal protective equipment, including double gloving.

Use of double gloving to reduce surgical personnel's risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens: an integrative review.

Surgical team members are known to have a higher incidence of percutaneous injuries compared with other health care workers, which increases surgical personnel's risk both of exposure to bloodborne pathogens and acquiring bloodborne illnesses. The purpose of this integrative review was to determine whether double gloving reduces the surgical team member's risk of percutaneous injury when compared with single gloving. Factors addressed are double gloving versus single gloving, use of an indicator glove system, optimum levels of protection, and policies and procedures to facilitate compliance with double gloving. Evidence supports the use of double gloving and double gloving with an indicator glove system to decrease the risk of percutaneous injury and therefore is an effective barrier to bloodborne pathogen exposure. Perioperative managers and educators should develop educational methods to support double-gloving compliance; monitor and conduct periodic audits to evaluate compliance; and review and revise quality improvement strategies as necessary to protect surgical employees from percutaneous injuries.

Efficacy of double gloving technique in major and minor oral surgical procedures: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: A prospective analysis was carried out over a 1-year period to assess gloves used during 100 major and 100 minor oral surgical procedures to test for efficacy of double gloving in oral surgical procedures. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of double gloving technique in preventing cross infection in both major and minor oral surgical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gloves used during 100 major and 100 minor oral surgical procedures were analyzed to check for glove perforations and skin punctures. 100 sterile gloves were tested as control. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-square test was used to determine whether there was any difference between the expected and observed values in various categories. RESULTS: A higher number of glove perforations was seen in minor oral surgical procedures compared with major surgeries, dominant hand compared with the nondominant, outer gloves compared with the inner, in procedures which took a longer duration of time to complete, in procedures involving wiring and in the index finger followed by the thumb and the palm. CONCLUSION: Double gloving technique using sterile gloves can be used as an effective means of infection control for all major and minor surgical procedures, especially high-risk procedures involving patients who maybe suffering from or carriers of blood-borne infections.