Disinfection of gloved hands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Disinfection of gloves can be used during a pandemic situation when performing various procedures on the same patient or when removing personal protective equipment. If performing glove disinfection, there is a need to check the compatibility of gloves with the disinfectant product used. AIM: To test the resistance of nitrile gloves to various disinfectant solutions. METHODS: One hundred percent powder-free nitrile gloves, composed of nitrile butadiene rubber compounds, were exposed to various disinfectants to analyse resistance. The seven most commonly used disinfectant solutions in the healthcare field were selected for testing. The effects of each disinfectant were analysed in comparison with the control group (untreated glove). For tensile testing, the thickness of each test specimen was measured with a micrometer. FINDINGS: Bleach solution decreased the breaking load of gloves, although to a lesser extent than disinfectants that contained ethanol. CONCLUSION: Disinfectants that contain alcohol decrease the breaking load of nitrile gloves.

At what point during total knee arthroplasty operations are gloves most frequently torn?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the time points during a total knee arthroplasty operation when there is the greatest possibility of tearing a surgical glove and thus the stage of the operation at which there is the greatest risk of infection. METHODS: The study included 300 total knee arthroplasty cases performed by 10 orthopedic surgeons. Using a chronometer during the operation, the upper layer of each surgical glove was removed and inflated with sterile saline at 10-min intervals. When a tear was determined, a record was made of the time it occurred, the stage of the operation, the finger that was torn, and the side (right or left hand). RESULTS: The mean time of the glove perforation was 40.74 ± 10.69 min. Glove tears occurred at the rate of 28.9% (n = 39) in the thumb, 63.7% (n = 86) in the index finger, 2.2% (n = 3) in the middle finger, and 5.2% (n = 7) in the ring finger. The tears occurred after the femoral cut in 8.1% (n = 11), after the tibial cut in 14.8% (n = 20), at the stage of trial component reduction in 52.6% of cases (n = 71), after placement of the prosthesis in 7.4% (n = 10), and at the closure stage in 17% (n = 23) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The fingers requiring the most care during total knee arthroplasty are the thumb and index finger. The stages of the operation with the greatest risk for glove tears are trial component reduction and wound closure. Changing gloves after these high-risk surgical stages would help to decrease the risk of periprosthetic infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV/Case series.

The benefits of latex-free gloves in the operating room environment.

Sterile protective gloves are used to reduce the risk of infection for patients and clinicians in all healthcare settings. This is particularly important in operating theatres, where surgical site infection is a common and serious complication for perioperative patients. These gloves have traditionally been made from natural rubber latex and dusted with cornstarch powder. However, frequent use of latex gloves can lead to a hypersensitivity or allergy to latex. A latex allergy causes discomfort and inconvenience, and it may reduce productivity, impose significant financial burdens and even be life threatening. There has not been sufficient evidence to ban the clinical use of latex; however, in cases of suspected latex allergy, guidelines recommend the use of either latex-free gloves or powder-free, low-protein latex gloves. The use of these alternative gloves has typically been limited to cases of allergy, because they have previously been associated with reduced dexterity and durability compared with latex gloves. This article presents four case studies, in which health professionals in a perioperative setting compare the advantages and disadvantages of using traditional latex surgical gloves with those of latex-free gloves manufactured by Cardinal Health. The findings of these case studies suggest that these latex-free gloves are equal to latex gloves in terms of establishing asepsis and providing comfort and dexterity to the wearer, without presenting the risk of developing latex sensitivity and/or allergy.

Esterilización y/o reuso de elementos de protección personal en la pandemia COVID-19 / Sterilization and reuse of personal protection elements in the COVID-19 pandemic

CONTEXTO CLÍNICO: Los equipos de protección personal (EPP) son usados por el personal de salud para crear una barrera entre el paciente y el ambiente o un objeto, potencialmente contaminados por microorganismos. En enfermedades infecciosas es clave adoptar medidas preventivas de contagio y de mitigación en el manejo comunitario y nosocomial de casos. La enfermedad por el Coronavirus 2019 (COVID­19, por su sigla en inglés Coronavirus Disease 2019) es una enfermedad respiratoria de humanos producida por un nuevo coronavirus identificado con la sigla SARS-CoV-2. El período de incubación de la infección es de 2 a 14 días. La mayor parte de los contagios se producen de persona a persona, siendo altamente transmisible. El cuadro clínico varía desde casos asintomáticos a cuadros febriles con tos y dificultad respiratoria, neumonía y distrés respiratorio. También puede acompañarse de alteraciones gastrointestinales. TECNOLOGÍA: Los equipos de protección personal pueden incluir barbijos, camisolines, mascaras filtrantes de alta eficiencia, máscaras faciales de acetato, guantes, cubrebotas descartables o de tela, y otros. En relación a los barbijos, se consideran aquellos descartables de una o dos capas (mascarillas protectoras), barbijos quirúrgicos (barbijos de 3 o 4 capas o barbijos tipo N95). Según la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) de la Argentina, los barbijos son productos de polipropileno (PP). La estructura textil producida por entrelazado de fibras y/o filamentos continuos consolidados por medios mecánicos, químicos, térmicos o sus combinaciones y según los gramos de entretejidos, se define su utilidad y tipo de barbijo. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar la evidencia disponible acerca de la eficacia, seguridad y aspectos relacionados con la esterilización y/o reuso de equipos de protección personal en la pandemia por COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en las principales bases de datos bibliográficas, en buscadores genéricos de internet, y financiadores de salud. Se priorizó la inclusión de revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorizados (ECAs), evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS), evaluaciones económicas, guías de práctica clínica (GPC) y recomendaciones de diferentes sistemas de salud. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron tres ETS, 11 GPC, y un comunicado del fabricante de insumos médicos 3M acerca de la esterilización y/o reuso de elementos de protección personal en la pandemia por COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: No se encontraron estudios comparativos acerca de la eficacia y/o de la seguridad de la esterilización y/o reuso de los elementos de protección personal (EPP) para el personal de salud en la atención de pacientes con infección por SARS-CoV-2 probable, sospechoso o confirmado, versus no tomar esas medidas. La necesidad de evaluar la posibilidad de esterilización y/o reuso de los EPP se basa en la situación crítica que la pandemia por COVID-19 ha puesto a los servicios de salud mundiales y en la necesidad de la conservación de los recursos necesarios para poder afrontar la pandemia. Los EPP usados por el personal de salud son fabricados para ser descartados después de su uso, luego de un tiempo determinado, según las recomendaciones de los fabricantes. El único estudio encontrado al momento de realizar este informe que evaluaba los métodos más frecuentes de esterilización sugeridos por las guías de buena práctica de manufactura (radiación ultravioleta, calor seco al 70°C, etanol al 70% y peróxido de hidrógeno vaporizado) sugirió que para los barbijos del tipo N95 el único método que podría reducir la contaminación sin afectar su funcionamiento es el peróxido de hidrógeno vaporizado. Las recomendaciones de organismos internacionales como la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), el Centro de Control de Infecciones estadounidense, de varios ministerios de salud de Europa y Latinoamérica sugieren que, a pesar de no existir evidencia, podrían adoptarse las siguientes medidas: uso extendido (uso más allá del tiempo recomendado por el fabricante) de las máscaras con filtro y barbijos tipo N95 (por hasta cinco días), reprocesamiento seguido de reutilización (después de la limpieza o esterilización) de estos elementos, o bien considerar elementos alternativos en comparación con los elementos estándar recomendados por la OMS. Estos procesos deben garantizar una desinfección y esterilización adecuada, la no toxicidad residual en el material y sobre todo integridad funcional (sistemas de filtrado y sistemas de ajuste). En la extensión del uso de los barbijos de cualquier tipo se sugiere que su uso podría ser continuo o intermitente entre 4 a 8 hs antes de ser desechado en bolsa roja. El ministerio de Salud de Argentina recomienda el descarte de barbijos tipo N95 a los 15 días de su uso o cuando éste se encuentre dañado o manchado. Con respecto a los camisolines se sugiere el reemplazo de telas descartables por telas lavables que soporten hasta 75 ciclos de lavados y desinfección, a cuyo uso se debe sumar el de delantales de plástico descartables.

A novel method to teach and assess the sterility of donning sterile gloves.

Sterility is of utmost importance during surgery, particularly orthopaedic surgery. The literature suggests sterility, when compromised, is frequently contaminated at the point of donning sterile gowns and gloves. We describe a novel method to assess the compliance of sterility whilst applying surgical gloves using an ultraviolet lightbox and an ultraviolet-sensitive 'Germ paint'. We carried out an audit of 'sterility' using this method with our surgical trainees. A subsequent educational programme described methods of glove-donning. Repeat assessment yielded significantly improved results. Educating staff using this method may improve sterility in theatre. We believe this is a novel method to teach and assess sterility during glove-donning. The equipment is readily accessible within each NHS hospital. Medical and theatre staff should use this as part of training and departmental induction programmes.

Hands-on defibrillation with a safety barrier: An analysis of potential risk to rescuers.

BACKGROUND: Interruptions in compressions reducethe efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and are inevitable during hands-off periods for shocks. Clinical exam gloves were found to facilitate safe contact with patients during shock delivery but the safety of this practice has been questioned. Polyethylene is of interest because of its safety record in the medical arena and its electrical insulation properties. METHODS: This study measured the current leak through 2 mil (0.002 inch) polyethylene drapes during shock delivery. The current leak was assessed by measurement of voltage changes in a circuit recommended by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for current leak safety testing. Current flowed off the drape, through the circuit and to electric ground in a manner consistent with standardized testing. Perceptibility was assessed in a subset with the investigator's bare hands pressed into the drape during shock delivery. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients undergoing elective cardioversion at Emory University Hospital underwent analysis (age 23-90, 36% female). Biphasic energies were 200-360 J. The root mean square (RMS) current leak averaged 0.072 ± 0.022 mA and peak current leak averaged 0.67 ± 0.21 which is well below IEC recommendations of 3.5 mA RMS and 5.0 mA peak. Finally, no instances of dielectric breakdown occurred and no shocks were perceptible. CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylene is a common medical material which may facilitate safe hands-on defibrillation. Our data illustrates that a thin, semitransparent layer of polyethylene is a safe and feasible adjunct to cardiac arrest kits to allow continued compressions and simplification of the CPR process.

Glove and instrument changing to prevent tumour seeding in cancer surgery: a survey of surgeons' beliefs and practices.

Background: Some surgeons change gloves and instruments after the extirpative phase of cancer surgery with the intent of reducing the risk of local and wound recurrence. Although this practice is conceptually appealing, the evidence that gloves or instruments act as vectors of cancer-cell seeding in the clinical setting is weak. To determine the potential effect of further investigation of this question, we surveyed the practices and beliefs of a broad spectrum of surgeons who operate on cancer patients. Methods: Using a modified Dillman approach, a survey was mailed to all 945 general surgeons listed in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario public registry. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and free-text response questions. Responses were tabulated and grouped into themes, including specific intraoperative events and surgeon training. Predictive variables were analyzed by chi-square test. Results: Of 459 surveys returned (adjusted response rate: 46%), 351 met the inclusion criteria for retention. Of those respondents, 52% reported that they change gloves during cancer resections with the intent of decreasing the risk of tumour seeding, and 40%, that they change instruments for that purpose. The proportion of respondents indicating that they take measures to protect the wound was 73% for laparoscopic cancer resections and 31% for open resections. Training and years in practice predicted some of the foregoing behaviours. The most commonly cited basis for adopting specific strategies to prevent tumour seeding was "gut feeling," followed by clinical training. Most respondents believe that it is possible or probable that surgical gloves or instruments harbour malignant cells, but that a cancer recurrence proceeding from that situation is unlikely. Conclusions: There is no consensus on how gloves and instruments should be handled in cancer operations. Further investigation is warranted.

Evaluation of surgical glove integrity and factors associated with glove defect.

BACKGROUND: Surgical glove perforation may expose both patients and staff members to severe complications. This study aimed to determine surgical glove perforation rate and the factors associated with glove defect. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between January and March 2017 at a Tunisian university hospital center in 3 different surgical departments: urology, maxillofacial, and general and digestive. The gloves were collected and tested to detect perforations using the water-leak test as described in European Norm NF EN 455-1. For percentage comparisons, the χ2 test was used with a significance threshold of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 284 gloves were collected. Of these, 47 were found to be perforated, a rate of 16.5%. All perforations were unnoticed by the surgical team members. The majority of perforated gloves (61.7%) were collected after urology procedures (P = .00005), 77% of perforated gloves were detected when the duration of the procedure exceeded 90 minutes (P = .001), and 96% were from brand A, which were the thicker gloves (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted an important problem neglected by surgical teams. The findings reaffirm the importance of double-gloving and changing gloves in surgeries of more than 90 minutes' duration.

Bundles Prevent Surgical Site Infections After Colorectal Surgery: Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal surgeries (CRS) have one of the highest rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) with rates 15 to >30%. Prevention "bundles" or sets of evidence-based interventions are structured ways to improve patient outcomes. The aim sof this study is to evaluate CRS SSI prevention bundles, bundle components, and implementation and compliance strategies. METHODS: A meta-analysis of studies with pre- and post-implementation data was conducted to assess the impact of bundles on SSI rates (superficial, deep, and organ/space). Subgroup analysis of bundle components identified optimal bundle designs. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (51,413 patients) were identified and 23 (17,557 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. A SSI risk reduction of 40% (p < 0.001) was noted with 44% for superficial SSI (p < 0.001) and 34% for organ/space (p = 0.048). Bundles with sterile closure trays (58.6 vs 33.1%), MBP with oral antibiotics (55.4 vs 31.8%), and pre-closure glove changes (56.9 vs 28.5%) had significantly greater SSI risk reduction. CONCLUSION: Bundles can effectively reduce the risk of SSIs after CRS, by fostering a cohesive environment, standardization, and reduction in operative variance. If implemented successfully and complied with, bundles can become vital to improving patients' surgical quality of care.

Glove Perforation Rate in Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Study To Evaluate the Efficacy of Double Gloving.

BACKGROUND: The risk of exposure of either the patient or the surgeon to communicable disease when the surgical glove is perforated is important. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. Therefore, we intended to determine the efficacy of double gloving in our center. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study, involving (randomly selected) surgeons, who wore single or double latex surgical gloves during procedures. Gloves were collected and evaluated for perforations (using air insufflation and water leak methods). RESULTS: A total of 1,536 gloves were collected (512 single gloves and 1,024 double gloves), with 78 of 512 gloves perforated, giving a rate of 15.2%. Perforation rate was 15.2% in single gloves, 14.4% in double gloves, 15.5% in emergency operations, and 14.3% in elective surgery. It was highest (30.8%) among registrars in training, particularly when doing any deep (16.0%) surgery. Glove perforation rate was highest (17.4%) among general surgery procedures as opposed to pediatric surgery (14.6%), urology (13.9%), neurosurgery (11.7%), and plastic surgery (10.6%), with (42.1%) index finger injury. In unused (control group) gloves, the rate of perforation was (0.8%). There was a substantial difference in the overall perforation rate between single and double glove sets (15.2% versus 14.4%) (X(2) = 1748, p < 0.0001). However, among the double set, total gloves [outer and inner set] analysis revealed a perforation rate of 27.5% (141 of 512). Of this set, the number of inner gloves that perforated as a result of a through and through puncture from outer to the inner gloves gave a rate of 1.17% (six of 512). Thus, the protection offered by double gloves was 98.83% (X(2) = 280.9, p < 0.0001) even if the outer gloves were perforated. CONCLUSION: The use of double gloves has more than 90% protection to patient and the surgeon. Therefore, wearing double gloves should be encouraged in surgery.

Glove failure in elective thyroid surgery: A prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze perforation rate in sterile gloves used by surgeons in the operating theatre of the Department of Endocrinological and General Surgery of Medical University of Lodz. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized and controlled trial. This study analyses the incidents of tears in sterile surgical gloves used by surgeons during operations on 3 types of thyroid diseases according to the 10th revision of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) codes. Nine hundred seventy-two pairs (sets) of gloves were collected from 321 surgical procedures. All gloves were tested immediately following surgery using the water leak test (EN455-1) to detect leakage. RESULTS: Glove perforation was detected in 89 of 972 glove sets (9.2%). Statistically relevant more often glove tears occurred in operator than the 1st assistant (p < 0.001). The sites of perforation were localized mostly on the middle finger of the non-dominant hand (22.5%), and the non-dominant ring finger (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has proved that the role performed by the surgeon during the procedure (operator, 1st assistant) has significant influence on the risk of glove perforations. Nearly 90% of glove perforations are unnoticed during surgery.

A New Approach to Pathogen Containment in the Operating Room: Sheathing the Laryngoscope After Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists may contribute to postoperative infections by means of the transmission of blood and pathogens to the patient and the environment in the operating room (OR). Our primary aims were to determine whether contamination of the IV hub, the anesthesia work area, and the patient could be reduced after induction of anesthesia by removing the risk associated with contaminants on the laryngoscope handle and blade. Therefore, we conducted a study in a simulated OR where some of the participants sheathed the laryngoscope handle and blade in a glove immediately after it was used to perform an endotracheal intubation. METHODS: Forty-five anesthesiology residents (postgraduate year 2-4) were enrolled in a study consisting of identical simulation sessions. On entry to the simulated OR, the residents were asked to perform an anesthetic, including induction and endotracheal intubation timed to approximately 6 minutes. Of the 45 simulation sessions, 15 were with a control group conducted with the intubating resident wearing single gloves, 15 with the intubating resident using double gloves with the outer pair removed and discarded after verified intubation, and 15 wearing double gloves and sheathing the laryngoscope in one of the outer gloves after intubation. Before the start of the scenario, the lips and inside of the mouth of the mannequin were coated with a fluorescent marking gel. After each of the 45 simulations, an observer examined the OR using an ultraviolet light to determine the presence of fluorescence on 25 sites: 7 on the patient and 18 in the anesthesia environment. RESULTS: Of the 7 sites on the patient, ultraviolet light detected contamination on an average of 5.7 (95% confidence interval, 4.4-7.2) sites under the single-glove condition, 2.1 (1.5-3.1) sites with double gloves, and 0.4 (0.2-1.0) sites with double gloves with sheathing. All 3 conditions were significantly different from one another at P < 0.001. Of the 18 environmental sites, ultraviolet light detected fluorescence on an average of 13.2 (95% confidence interval, 11.3-15.6) sites under the single-glove condition, 3.5 (2.6-4.7) with double gloves, and 0.5 (0.2-1.0) with double gloves with sheathing. Again, all 3 conditions were significantly different from one another at P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that when an anesthesiologist in a simulated OR sheaths the laryngoscope immediately after endotracheal intubation, contamination of the IV hub, patient, and intraoperative environment is significantly reduced.

Evaluation of the efficacy of antibacterial medical gloves in the ICU setting.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of medical gloves may support microbial transmission. New strategies could increase the safety of medical gloves without the risk of patient and surface contamination. AIM: To compare the efficacy of synthetic antibacterial nitrile medical gloves coated with polyhexamethylen-biguanid hydrochloride (PHMB) on the external surface with identical non-antibacterial medical gloves in reducing glove contamination after common patient care measures in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. METHODS: ICU staff wore either standard or antibacterial gloves during patient care activities. The number of bacteria on gloves was measured semi-quantitatively immediately after the performance of four clinical activities. FINDINGS: There was a significant difference in mean bacterial growth [colony-forming units (cfu)] between control gloves and antibacterial gloves {60 [standard deviation (SD) 23] vs 16 (SD 23) cfu/glove imprint, P < 0.001}. In three of the four clinical activities (intravenous fluid handling, oral toilet and physiotherapy), the antibacterial gloves had significantly less bacterial contamination compared with the control gloves (P = 0.011 and <0.001, respectively). Although antibacterial gloves showed lower bacterial contamination after changing linen compared with control gloves, the difference was not significant (P = 0.311). CONCLUSION: This study showed that use of antibacterial medical gloves significantly reduced bacterial contamination after typical patient care activities in 57% of the investigated clinical activities (P < 0.01). The use of antibacterial medical gloves may support reduction of cross-contamination in the ICU setting.

Analysis of Hand Size and Ergonomics of Instruments in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Moving from the study conducted in 2004 on adult surgeons we want to analyze the ergonomics applied in pediatric minimally invasive surgery. An online survey was conducted among the members of the European Paediatric Surgeons' Association that included 14 questions pertaining to demographic, surgical glove size, double glove use, prior hand surgery, and the ease or difficulty in using different types of laparoscopic instruments. A total of 138 pediatric surgeons completed the survey. The difficulty score (DS) was similar between the 3.5- and 5-mm instruments. Other specialized instruments such as Ligasure, Ultracision, Clip applicators, endobags, and staplers were found to have higher DS. The needle holder was the only instrument that is part of the normal 5-mm operating sets, which was found to have a higher DS. Our survey found increased DS with the endobag and stapler, but this was not significant. Also prior hand surgery or double glove use was not associated with difficulty in usage of minimally invasive instruments when compared with normal hands in this survey.

Risk assessment of accidental exposure of surgeons to blood during orthopedic surgery. Are we safe in surgical gloves?

AIM: To analyze tears in sterile surgical gloves used by surgeons in the operating theatre of the Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery Department, Copernicus Memorial Hospital, Lódz, Poland. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This study analyzes tears in sterile surgical gloves used by surgeons by ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. 1,404 gloves were collected from 581 surgical procedures. All gloves were tested immediately following surgery using the test method described in Standard EN455-1 (each glove was inflated with 1,000 ± 50 ml of water and observed for leaks for 2-3 min.). RESULTS: Analysis of tears took into consideration the role of medical personnel (operator, first assistant, second assistant) during surgical procedure, the type of procedure according to ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, and the elective or emergency nature of the procedure. The results of the study show that these factors have a significant influence on the risk of glove tears. Significant differences were observed in tear frequency and tear location depending on the function performed by the surgeon during the procedure. CONCLUSION: The study proved that the role performed by the surgeon during the procedure (operator, first assistant, second assistant) has a significant influence on the risk of glove tearing. The role in the procedure determines exposure to glove tears. Implementing a double gloving procedure in surgical procedures or using single gloves characterized by higher tear resistance should be considered.

Comparison of compliance of glove use among anesthesia providers: a prospective blinded observational study.

Compliance of using gloves in the operating room (OR) is still poor amongst anesthesia providers. The practice of using gloves amongst OR anesthesia providers (attending anesthesiologists, anesthesia nurses, and trainees) in a tertiary care center was observed over 8 months. Observations were made during intravenous (IV) cannulations, laryngeal mask airway (LMA)/endotracheal tube (ETT) introductions, and ETT extubation/LMA removals, without alerting anesthesia personnel. Ten observations were made from each of the procedures for every provider involved. 1,240 observations were made involving 8 attending anesthesiologists, 9 trainees, and 14 nurses. A Chi-square test showed significant difference of glove utilization rates between the groups during all 4 procedures. The highest compliance was observed in trainees (50%), followed by nurses (39.64%), and attending anesthesiologists (10.93%). All groups had their highest compliance levels during IV cannulation. Additionally, attending anesthesiologists had the lowest compliance levels during all individual procedures. Anesthesia nurses had the highest compliance during LMA removals (39.29%), whereas trainees showed the highest compliance in all other procedures. Glove usage by anesthesia providers during routine OR procedures continues to be low. Educational programs highlighting the hazards of noncompliance and strict departmental protocols may help to eliminate irregularities in the use of gloves.

Factors that influence the selection of sterile glove brand: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the performance and cost of gloves.

PURPOSE: To determine whether glove use modifies tactile and psychomotor performance of health care providers when compared with no glove use and to evaluate factors that influence the selection of sterile glove brand. METHODS: Forty-two anesthesia providers (nine anesthesiologists, seven nurse anesthetists, 20 residents, six student nurse anesthetists) enrolled in and completed this cross-over randomized trial from May 2010 until August 2011. Participants underwent standardized psychomotor testing while wearing five different types of protective gloves. Assessments of psychomotor performance included tactile, fine motor/dexterity, and hand-eye coordination tests. Subjective ratings of glove comfort and performance were reported at the completion of each glove trial. The manufacturer's suggested retail price was collected for each glove tested. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in touch sensitivity for all nerve distributions, with all glove types resulting in less sensitivity than a bare hand. When compared with the non-sterile glove, only the thickest glove tested (Ansell Perry Orthopaedic) was found to have less touch sensitivity. Fine motor dexterity testing revealed no statistically significant differences in time to completion amongst glove types or bare handed performance. In hand-eye coordination testing across treatment conditions, the thickest glove tested (Ansell Perry(®) Orthopaedic) was the only glove to show a statistically significant difference from a bare hand. There were statistically significant differences in glove comfort ratings across glove types, with latex-free, powder-free (Cardinal Esteem(®)), and latex powder-free (Mölnlycke-Biogel(®)) rated highest; however, there were no statistically significant differences in subjective performance ratings across glove types. CONCLUSIONS: Given the observed similarities in touch sensitivity and psychomotor performance associated with five different glove types, our results suggest that subjective provider preferences, such as glove comfort, should be balanced against material costs.