Does exposure to polymethyl methacrylate bone cement increase the risk of surgical glove failure?

INTRODUCTION: Surgical glove perforation has been linked to a double-fold increased risk of surgical site infection. Infection in the context of arthroplasty can have devastating consequences. In orthopaedics, use of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is commonplace, and the impact on glove strength and perforation risk is not fully understood. This study aimed to examine the resistance to perforation and thickness of gloves following PMMA exposure, in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for glove integrity. METHODS: Pairs of gloves were separated and randomly sorted into exposure and control groups. Twenty pairs of latex and 40 pairs of polyisoprene gloves were used. Exposure group glove cuffs were in contact with cement from a single surface of the glove for 13 min as cement cured. Force to perforation and glove thickness were tested in accordance with ISO guidelines. RESULTS: Latex gloves were found to have a significantly increased force to perforation following PMMA exposure (10.26 Newtons (N) vs. 9.81 N, P = 0.048). Both polyisoprene under- and over-gloves were shown to have no significant change in strength to perforation post exposure (9.69 N vs. 9.83 N, P = 0.561, and 10.26 N vs. 10.65 N, P = 0.168, respectively). All groups were over the ISO standard minimum strength of 5 N. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure of latex and polyisoprene surgical gloves to PMMA bone cement does not appear to increase glove perforation risk and rather may improve natural rubber latex glove strength. This study supports the use of latex and polyisoprene surgical gloves in procedures that involve the handling of PMMA bone cement.

Compression therapy using surgical gloves is ineffective for the prevention of vincristine-induced neuropathy in patients with malignant lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Vincristine (VCR) often induces peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an adverse event. Currently, there is no consensus on the prevention of vincristine-induced PN (VIPN). In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of compression therapy using surgical gloves for preventing VIPN. METHODS: Patients with malignant lymphoma (vincristine-naïve) who were receiving chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, VCR, and prednisolone, with or without rituximab, every 3 weeks for six cycles were eligible. For every VCR infusion, each patient wore two one-size-smaller gloves on one hand (study hand) for 90 min. The other hand was left bare (control hand). PN was assessed at each treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ver. 4.0. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with malignant lymphoma were enrolled and 44 were evaluated. At 1 month after treatment, the occurrence rates of grade ≥ 2 sensory PN were 13.6 and 13.6% in the study and control hands, respectively (p = 1.0), and those of grade ≥ 2 motor PN were 15.9 and 15.9% in the study and control hands, respectively (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Compression therapy using surgical gloves showed no significant effect for the prevention of VIPN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: November 1, 2018, National University Hospital Council of Japan (UMIN 000034145).

Sterile vs Nonsterile Gloves for the Repair of Wounds and Lacerations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis discusses use of sterile vs nonsterile gloves for the repair of wounds and lacerations.

Gloves Contamination During Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The use of double gloving has become a standard practice for joint replacement surgeons. However, since there are limited data on how gloves are contaminated during both primary and revision arthroplasty, no precise protocol exists to direct surgeons on when, or if, to change their gloves. The goals of this preliminary study were to evaluate the contamination of gloves during total joint arthroplasties (TJAs). METHODS: We included 25 infected cases and 10 primaries, which were performed at the same institution using the same surgical protocol from 3 fellowship trained surgeons. Samples were taken every 20 minutes from the start of the surgery until the joint was irrigated. Procedural steps were noted. To evaluate cross-contamination during infected cases, we sampled gloves using blood agar plates. In primary cases, culture swabs of anterior chamfer cuts and sterile instruments on the back table were used as negative controls. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used as an adjunct to identify low virulence bacteria. RESULTS: In the primary cases, all samples were found culture negative but 3 (8.1%) of the 37 samples were found to have a low, unidentifiable bacterial mass via NGS testing. In the infected cases, 41 (59.4%) of the 69 samples yielded positive microbial results. The positivity rate was higher in the samples collected after the arthrotomy was performed (70%) compared to samples collected before the arthrotomy was performed (40%), and the surgeon was only dissecting superficial layers (P = .502). CONCLUSION: Gloves seem to be a common source of cross-contamination in the intraoperative field during revision TJA. Due to the higher percent of positive samples following the opening of the joint, we hypothesize that the arthrotomy allows for the spread of bacteria across the operative site. While further investigation is necessary to formulate a precise protocol for the changing of gloves during TJA, it may be beneficial to perform a thorough irrigation of the joint and change of the gloves immediately following arthrotomy.

Application of Field Sterility to Safely Reduce Cost and Waste in Cleft Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare spending in the United States remains a major concern, requiring reforms to control spending and curtail costs. Medical supply is one of the largest expenses for hospitals and strategies should be utilized to reduce nonbeneficial service delivery, which increases cost without concomitant increase in value. Introduction of field sterility is one of the potential strategies that has been applied in several surgical disciplines to improve cost-efficiency by reducing overuse of resources and decreasing enormous medical waste. Of course, this must be applied without a diminution in safety. METHODS: The PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 1980 to 2022 were used to review literature. Key words included "cleft surgery and field sterility," "sterile gloves and oral surgery," "oral surgery and field sterility," "sterile techniques and cleft palate surgery," "sterile versus nonsterile gloves," "sterile and non-sterile gloves and minor surgery," "skin laceration repair and sterile techniques," "sterile gloves and wound suture," "surgical site infection and field sterility," "operating room versus clinical setting," "operating rooms economics and hand surgery," and "main operating room versus ambulatory." RESULTS: The literature search yielded 827 articles. Following evaluation of titles, abstracts, and manuscript contents, 23 articles were ultimately included, of which 10 discussed field sterility and cost-efficiency for cutaneous procedures, 9 hand surgery, and 4 oral surgery. There was no study evaluating field sterility application in cleft surgery. In the reviewed studies, no statistical significance was observed in surgical site infection (SSI) with substantial cost savings and medical waste reduction when hand procedures were performed in ambulatory settings with field sterility compared to the main operating room (OR). Furthermore, no difference was observed for SSI in wound closure, excision of skin lesions, or Mohs micrographic surgery when nonsterile gloves were used. CONCLUSION: The incidence of infection following most cleft-related procedures remains low. As such, the application of field sterility may be ideal for this setting. The cost and waste associated with standard operating protocols are not warranted for many cleft procedures.

A randomized controlled trial using surgical gloves to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy by paclitaxel in breast cancer patients (AIUR trial).

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common adverse effect of taxane treatment and can significantly affect patient quality of life. Currently, there are no effective treatments to alleviate symptoms of CIPN; thus, starting with prevention steps in high-risk patients is considered advantageous. However, for these prevention steps to be applicable to all patients, their side effects or accompanying discomforts should be minimal, and the intervention cost-effective. Compression therapy can be considered a prevention intervention, and using surgical gloves is feasible and cost-effective (approximately $0.6 per pair). Although previous studies on compression therapy using surgical gloves have reported decreased incidence of PN, these studies were non-randomized, limited to nab-paclitaxel treatment, and involved the use of small gloves, which may have caused discomfort. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the preventive effects of compression therapy using normal-sized surgical gloves on CIPN in patients treated with paclitaxel. METHODS: This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the preventive effects of compression therapy using surgical gloves on CIPN in women with stage II-III breast cancer who received paclitaxel chemotherapy for at least 12 weeks. This multicenter, randomized-controlled, open-label study will be conducted in six academic hospitals. Patients with medication or a medical history related to neuropathy or hand disease will be excluded. The primary outcome will be the preventive effect of compression therapy using surgical gloves, measured based on changes in the neurotoxicity component of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Taxane questionnaire. Furthermore, we will assess the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade of CIPN after 6 months. Notably, the estimated sample size, based on a p-value < 0.025 and statistical power of 0.9, will consist of 104 patients (52 per group), accounting for a 10% sample loss. DISCUSSION: This intervention can be easily implemented in clinical practice and may serve as a preventive strategy for CIPNs with strong patient adherence. If successful, this intervention could improve the quality of life and treatment adherence in patients receiving chemotherapy that can induce PN, extending beyond paclitaxel treatment alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05771974; Registered on March 16, 2023.

Influence of closed glove exchange on bacterial contamination of the hands of the surgical team.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if closed glove exchange (CGE) increases hand contamination. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Surgical teams participating in 65 individual surgical procedures were included, resulting in 200 individual enrollments. METHODS: At the completion of surgery, gloves were removed and hands were swabbed. The inside of the gown cuff was swabbed. Each participant regloved, using a closed gloving technique. The new gloves were removed, and hands were swabbed for culture a second time. Swabs underwent standard bacterial culture. RESULTS: Before glove exchange, or baseline, contamination was found on 17/200 dominant hands and 13/200 nondominant hands. After performing CGE, contamination was found on 14/200 and 15/200 dominant and nondominant hands, respectively. No difference was detected between the number of CFUs cultured from a surgeon's hands before CGE and the number of CFUs cultured from a surgeon's hands post-CGE (one sided sign test, p = .61). Twelve (12) different bacterial species were identified, the most common were Staphylococcus spp. (97/154; 63%). CONCLUSION: Closed glove exchange did not increase bacterial hand contamination over baseline levels. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: We found no evidence to support discontinuing CGE.

Frugal indigenous vessel loop made from a surgical glove.

We report a simple cost effective alternative to commercially available vessel loops made from sterilized surgical gloves for retraction of vital structures during vascular trauma, micro-vascular, micro-neural surgery.

Rubber gloves in orthopaedic surgery (part II): Cooke and Goodyear; Halsted and Caroline's gloves of love; from cotton to rubber after Perthes' experiments; double glove technique with Urist.

PURPOSE: This study determines the timeline for surgeons adopting rubber gloves and the double glove technique in the operating room for orthopaedic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the vague historical terms of discovery, acceptance, commonplace, and consistency, we analyzed the influence of the different actors in each period. RESULTS: Cotton or silk was used for early gloves; they were permeable, sometimes coated with paraffin. Uses of rubber date to the 1600 s when the Mesoamericans used rubber to make shoes. After the discovery of rubber in 1735 by the French scientist Charles de la Condamine in Peru, the rubber glove was imagined in 1834 and done for the first time by R. F. Cooke. The acceptance of rubber gloves arrived when the Goodyear-Rubber Society began to manufacture rubber gloves. Halsted, at Johns Hopkins Hospital, negotiated in 1889 with the Goodyear Rubber Company to produce thin rubber gloves to protect his nurse's hands from the dermatologic effects of the carbolic acid used to sterilize instruments. Commonplace to protect patients from bacteria of hand surgeons necessitated several decades. Dr. Joseph Bloodgood (Halsted's senior resident) remarked that gloving the surgeon with rubber gloves reduced the infection rate. Still, surgeons were reluctant to wear gloves that impaired the sense of touch. Laboratory experiments performed by G. Perthes on cotton and rubber gloves were necessary to generalize rubber gloves for practice in orthopaedic surgery. Consistency of the double-glove technique arrived during World War II when M. Urist proposed the double protection against bites from bone or bullet fragments while exploring war wounds. Only in 1965, when The Ansell Rubber Company utilized gamma irradiation as a low-cost method of sterilizing the gloves they produced, did disposable gloves become sterile. CONCLUSION: This article helps to understand the detailed discussions before surgical gloves' modern operating equipment.

Comparison of Postoperative Infection Rates After Office-based Oculoplastic Procedures Using Sterile and Clean Gloves.

PURPOSE: To compare postoperative infection (PI) rates using sterile and clean-boxed gloves in office-based oculoplastic procedures. METHODS: Prospective, comparative study of patients undergoing oculoplastic procedures by a single surgeon (RS) in an office-based procedure room between October 2018 and September 2020. Participants included were 18 years or older. Excluded were patients on oral antibiotics within 2 weeks before the procedure, had a follow-up period of less than 1 week, had a contaminated wound, had complex reconstructions, or had multiple simultaneous procedures performed. Oculoplastic procedures were performed using either sterile or clean-boxed gloves. The main outcome measure was the frequency of postoperative infection. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-nine patients, 1,815 (58%) of whom were women, with a mean age of 60 (18-102) years were included. One thousand five hundred seventy procedures were performed with sterile gloves, while 1,559 were performed with clean-boxed gloves. The patients in the 2 groups were similar in age, gender, and number of high-risk individuals. One patient in the sterile glove group who underwent upper blepharoplasty (0.064%) and one patient (0.064%) in the clean-boxed glove group who had an external levator advancement blepharoptosis repair developed PI. Neither patient had risk factors for infection, and both infections resolved after 1 week of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: In minimally complex in-office oculoplastic procedures, using sterile versus clean-boxed gloves resulted in similar low infection rates in this large cohort. The healthcare benefits may not outweigh the costs of using sterile gloves universally for office-based oculoplastic procedures.

Knot tying in arthroplasty and arthroscopy causes lesions to surgical gloves: a potential risk of infection.

PURPOSE: Recent studies have shown that the incidence of glove lesions during arthroscopy is much lower than that during primary and revision arthroplasty. However, the rate of glove damage after knot tying has not yet been systematically recorded. Therefore, the aim of the study was to determine the impact of surgical knot tying on glove integrity. It was hypothesized that knot tying increases the rate of glove damage, especially in arthroscopic surgery, which could be of special relevance in the treatment of rotator cuff tears. METHODS: Gloves that were changed immediately before suturing and only worn during knot tying were investigated for their integrity by means of water tightening test according to EN455. A total of 234 gloves from 40 total hip arthroplasties (THAs), 42 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and 36 rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) were collected. A bacterial pass-through test (BPTT) on glove lesions was performed under simulated sterile surgical conditions for 3 surgeons after a wear duration of 45 min. RESULTS: Glove damage by knot tying occurred in 25% of THA, 36.6% of TKA and 25% of RCR surgeries. In THA, the pulling hand (PH) was affected in 46.2%, and the main area of damage (15.4%) was detected on the tip of the middle finger; in TKAs the PH was damaged in 75%, and in RCRs the PH was affected in 66.7%, with most of the lesions (20% each) occurring on the tip of the index finger and the ring finger. The BPTT showed Staphylococcus hominis and Bacillus cereus. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative knot tying causes damage to gloves, which is of special relevance for arthroscopic surgery. Whereas knot tying is only partly responsible for glove damage in arthroplasty, the general rate of glove damage in arthroscopic surgery is low without knot tying. The surgical knot tying process must be understood as a possible damaging impact on the glove. Therefore, single gloving is not recommended, which is especially important in arthroscopic surgery, where double gloving is not yet standard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Surgical Glove Perforation and Percutaneous Injury during Intermaxillary Fixation with 0.5 Mm Stainless Steel Wire.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of exposure of either the patient or the surgeon to pathogens when the surgical glove is perforated is significant. This is particularly so in jaw fractures when intermaxillary fixation is done with the stainless-steel wire as many perforations also result in percutaneous injury. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This study was carried out in two tertiary Hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria. Adult patients for intermaxillary fixation as a result of jaw fractures were consecutively recruited into the study. Similarly, surgeons and their trainees (assistants) were also recruited. Factors investigated included the method of gloving used by surgeons and trainees (single versus double gloving), glove perforations and percutaneous injury rates, years of operator's experience, among others. During surgical operations, percutaneous injuries were recorded and obviously perforated or torn gloves were labelled and changed. At the end of every surgical procedure, gloves used were investigated for perforation. RESULTS: A total of 564 gloves were investigated (Surgeons-337; Trainees-227) after use for wire intermaxillary fixation procedures. The frequency of glove perforations for the surgeons was 72 (21.4%). Forefinger perforations were most frequent; 40 (55.6%) cases. Assistants, had 35 (15.4%) cases of glove perforations. Percutaneous injury occurred in 9.7% (7/72) and 5.7% (2/35 cases) of cases for surgeons and assistants, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study revealed high risk for wire-based IMF procedures. Single gloving was more frequently associated with percutaneous injuries although double gloving was more associated with perforations with higher surgeon infection risk. Double gloving reduces the risk of percutaneous injuries and, therefore, the likelihood of exposure to blood-borne pathogens.

INTRODUCTION: Le risque d'exposition du patient ou du chirurgien à des agents pathogènes lorsque le gant chirurgical est perforé est important. Cela est particulièrement le cas dans les fractures de la mâchoire lorsque la fixation intermaxillaire est effectuée avec le fil en acier inoxydable, car de nombreuses perforations entraînent également des lésions percutanées. MATÉRIEL ET MÉTHODE: Cette étude a été réalisée dans deux hôpitaux tertiaires à Abuja, au Nigeria. Des patients adultes pour une fixation intermaxillaire à la suite de fractures de la mâchoire ont été recrutés consécutivement dans l'étude. De même, des chirurgiens et leurs stagiaires (assistants) ont également été recrutés. Les facteurs étudiés comprenaient la méthode de gloving utilisée par les chirurgiens et les stagiaires (simple versus double gloving), les perforations de gants et les taux de blessures percutanées, les années d'expérience de l'opérateur, entre autres. Au cours des opérations chirurgicales, des blessures percutanées ont été enregistrées et des gants manifestement perforés ou déchirés ont été étiquetés et changés. À la fin de chaque intervention chirurgicale, les gants utilisés ont été étudiés pour la perforation. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 895 gants ont fait l'objet d'une enquête (Surgeons-337; Stagiaires-227) après utilisation pour les procédures de fixation intermaxillaire du fil. La fréquence des perforations de gants chez les chirurgiens était de 72 (21,4 %). Les perforations de l'index étaient les plus fréquentes, 40 (55,6 %) cas. Assistant, avait 35 (15,4%) cas de perforations de gants. Des lésions percutanées sont survenues dans 9,7 % (7/72) et 5,7 % (2/35 cas) des cas chez les chirurgiens et les assistants respectivement. CONCLUSION: L'étude a révélé un risque élevé pour les procédures filaires du FMI. Le gloving simple était plus fréquemment associé à des blessures percutanées, bien que le double gloving soit plus associé à des perforations avec un risque d'infection plus élevé chez le chirurgien. Le double gloving réduit le risque de blessures percutanées et, par conséquent, la probabilité d'exposition à des agents pathogènes transmissibles par le sang. MOTS CLÉS: Fixation intermaxillaire, gants, Chirurgien, Lésion percutanée.

The strange history of surgical gloves in orthopaedic surgery (part I): from no gloves and no hand washing to the introduction of cotton gloves in orthopaedic surgery.

PURPOSE: The goal was to evaluate the advent of surgical gloves during the eighteenth century, nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth century. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used first drawings and paintings, then historical photographs identified in books after 1830 (date of discovery of the photography) or in medical reports of surgery and anesthesiologists. The pictures determined the presence or absence of gloves in the period corresponding to the changing understanding of aseptic and antiseptic techniques proposed by Lister and Pasteur. RESULTS: There was an evolution of the material of gloves, but surgeons throughout time remained significantly opposed to gloves for a long period. Concerning materials, the caecum of a sheep, cotton, silk, leather, and crude rubber were used before the introduction of latex by Goodyear. For surgeons, gloves were introduced initially to protect theatre staff's and surgeon hands from infection and not to protect the patient. Many surgeons contributed to the evolution of surgical gloves, and the use of gloves was an evolutionary process rather than a discovery. The probability that a surgeon had gloves on photographs was 0% in 1860-1870 (period of Lister and Pasteur), 5% in 1890, 28% in 1900, 42% in 1910, 48% in 1920, 58% in 1930, and 75% during the World Word II and reached 100% only in 1950. CONCLUSION: While some reports suggest that by 1920, the use of gloves in surgery became routine practice, in reality, around 30% of trauma surgeons were not wearing gloves until 1939.

What Role Does a Colored Under Glove Have in Detecting Glove Perforation in Foot and Ankle Procedures?

BACKGROUND: Many orthopaedic surgical teams practice double gloving or use colored indicator gloving techniques to reduce contamination intraoperatively. Although the likelihood of glove perforation can be affected by the procedure type and surgeon habits, as well as the surgeon's technique, these factors have not been considered to determine the glove perforation rate, and the role of a colored under glove during operations seems less investigated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of foot and ankle procedures result in perforation of outer gloves or under gloves? (2) What factors (such as the type or duration of operation) appear to be associated with the likelihood of glove perforation? (3) Does the use of a colored indicator under glove make it more likely that a surgeon would perceive the perforation of an outer glove intraoperatively? METHODS: Between September 2020 and August 2021, the author performed 577 surgical foot or ankle procedures. Of those, patients who underwent subsequent operations under general or spinal anesthesia were considered as potentially eligible. Further, 16% (93) were excluded because the procedures were performed with the patient under local anesthesia, and another 1% (eight patients) were not analyzed (incomplete datasets for emergency operations performed at night). Finally, 82% (476 patients) were examined. To ensure statistical independence, gloves used in right-side operations in bilateral procedures and the most proximal surgery in unilateral procedures were included. Preoperatively, the surgeon was randomly assigned to use either a combination of two regular surgical gloves or a regular outer glove worn over a colored indicator under glove. Patient diagnosis, type of procedure, tourniquet time, and gloving type were recorded. There was no difference in potentially relevant confounding variables, such as the proportion of procedures performed on bone (78% [188 of 242] versus 83% [195 of 234]; p = 0.13), nor in tourniquet time (58 ± 30 minutes versus 62 ± 31 minutes; p = 0.45) between the regular glove and indicator glove groups. At the end of each procedure, the surgeon was asked whether he believed either the outer or under glove was perforated, and whether the use of a colored under glove increased the proportion of procedures in which the surgeon correctly ascertained that a perforation had occurred. To determine the proportion of gloves that were perforated, a standardized water-leak method was used, and the proportion of gloves with perforations based on several parameters of interest, including bone versus soft tissue operation and tourniquet time, was compared. RESULTS: During 476 foot and ankle procedures, the overall glove perforation proportion was 19% (92 of 476 procedures). Under-glove perforation was observed in 4% (17 of 476 procedures) of the operations. There was no difference in glove perforation proportions between bone and soft tissue operations (76 of 383 versus 16 of 93; odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 1.52; p = 0.56). As tourniquet time (operation time) increased, the glove perforation proportion also increased (Exp[B] = 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03; p < 0.001). The use of indicator under gloves increased the surgeon's intraoperative detection of glove perforation (in 68% of procedures [32 of 47] versus 29% [13 of 45]; OR = 5.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 12.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgical glove perforation occurred in approximately one of five foot and ankle procedures. Based on the results of this study, I recommend using colored indicator under gloves and replacing the under glove when replacing the outer glove after perforation is seen in order to detect contamination early and reduce any intraoperative contamination related to glove injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Uso de elementos de protección personal en la atención del parto vaginal en tiempos de COVID-19 / Use of Personal Protective Equipment When Providing Vaginal Delivery Care in Times of COVID-19 / Uso de elementos de proteção individual na assistência ao parto vaginal em tempos de COVID-19

Introducción. En diciembre de 2019 en Wuhan, China, se presentó un brote de neumonía atípica generado por el virus SARS-CoV-2, el cual es un tipo de coronavirus causante de la enfermedad COVID-19, que se convirtió con el tiempo en una pandemia. En este contexto, el uso de los elementos de protección personal tomó un especial interés, en especial para la atención del trabajo de parto vaginal, dada la confusión en los círculos obstétricos respecto a la mejor forma de proteger al personal sanitario en dichos casos. El objetivo de este artículo de revisión es identificar cuáles son los elementos de protección personal indicados en la atención del parto vaginal y su correcto uso en tiempos de COVID-19. División de temas tratados. Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura accediendo a las bases de datos: PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Google Académico y sitios web como la Organización Mundial de la salud (OMS), Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés) y el Colegio Americano de Obstetras y Ginecólogos (ACOG), entre otros. Se usaron palabras claves como "Infecciones por Coronavirus", "Parto Normal", "Protección Personal", "Personal de Salud", "Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria" y "Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos". La literatura permitió identificar aspectos introductorios al tema, epidemiología, características generales de los elementos de protección personal, y los elementos específicos para el uso correcto en la atención del parto vaginal. Conclusiones. El trabajo de parto es considerado como un procedimiento generador de aerosoles, por lo que se recomienda principalmente el uso de tapabocas N95 o un respirador que ofrezca mayor protección para personal de salud en la atención del parto vaginal, con el fin de evitar la infección por SARS-CoV-2; sin embargo, se debe insistir en el uso adecuado y completo de los elementos de protección personal como lo son la bata quirúrgica, el gorro, el protector ocular y guantes, independientemente de la sintomatología de la paciente.

Introduction. In December 2019, in Wuhan, China, there was an outbreak of atypical pneumonia caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is a type of coronavirus causative of COVID-19, which overtime became a pandemic. In this context, the use of personal protective equipment is of special interest, especially when providing care in vaginal delivery, due to the confusion in obstetric circles regarding the best way to protect healthcare personnel in these cases. The objective of this review article is to identify which are the personal protective elements indicated for providing care in vaginal birth and their correct use during COVID-19. Division of Covered Topics. A narrative review of the literature was carried out, accessing the following databases: PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Google Scholar, and websites such as the World Health Organization (WHO), Center for the Control and Prevention of Diseases (CDC), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, among others. Keywords such as "Coronavirus Infections", "Normal Birth," Personal Protective Elements," "Healthcare Personnel", "Respiratory Protective Devices", and "Eye Protection Devices" were used. The literature allowed us to identify introductory aspects on the matter, epidemiology, general characteristics of personal protective elements, and the specific elements for correct use when providing care in vaginal birth. Conclusions. Labor is considered an aerosol-generating procedure. Therefore, the main recommendation is the use of an N95 mask or a respirator which allows for greater protection for healthcare personnel when assisting vaginal birth, in order to avoid infection due to SARS-CoV-2. However, there must be an adequate and complete use of personal protective equipment, such as surgical gowns, hats, eye protection and gloves, regardless of the patient's symptomatology

Introdução. Em dezembro de 2019 em Wuhan, na China, houve um surto de pneumonia atípica gerada pelo vírus SARS-CoV-2, que é um tipo de coronavírus que causa a doença COVID-19, que, com o tempo, acabou se tornando uma pandemia. Nesse contexto, o uso de elementos de proteção individual tornou-se de particular interesse, especialmente para a assistência do parto vaginal, dada a confusão nos círculos obstétricos quanto à melhor forma de proteger os profissionais da saúde nesses casos. O objetivo deste artigo de revisão é identificar os elementos de proteção individual indicados na assistência do parto vaginal e seu uso correto em tempos de COVID-19. Divisão de tópicos abordados. Foi realizada uma revisão narrativa da literatura acessando as seguintes bases de dados: PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Google Scholar e sites como a Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças (CDC, na sigla em inglês) e o Colégio Americano de Obstetras e Ginecologistas (ACOG), entre outros. Foram utilizadas palavras-chave como "Infecções por Coronavírus", "Parto Normal", "Proteção Pessoal", "Pessoal de Saúde", "Dispositivos de Proteção Respiratória" e "Dispositivos de Proteção Ocular". A literatura permitiu identificar aspectos introdutórios ao tema, epidemiologia, características gerais dos elementos de proteção individual e elementos específicos para o uso correto na assistência do parto vaginal. Conclusões. O trabalho de parto é considerado um procedimento gerador de aerossóis, portanto, recomenda-se principalmente o uso de máscaras N95 ou um respirador que ofereça maior proteção para os profissionais de saúde na assistência do parto vaginal, a fim de evitar a infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2; no entanto, deve-se insistir no uso adequado e completo de elementos de proteção individual, como bata cirúrgica, touca, protetor ocular e luvas, independentemente dos sintomas do paciente.

The global incidence and associated factors of surgical gloves perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgeon's hands are exposed to a range of chemical and physical stressors that influence the integrity of gloves. Thus, glove perforation facilitates pathogen transmission through the holes. Numerous studies have shown that glove perforation is of great importance, but there is still no complete consensus. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the safety conditions of surgical gloves based on the incidence of glove perforation among surgical teams. METHODS: A literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ISI, and ProQuest databases. The incidence of glove perforation was reviewed in eight categories. A total of 580 articles were found in the initial search. RESULTS: 109 articles containing 130 datasets were analyzed. The overall incidence of glove perforation was 14.44 %. Surgeons had the highest incidence of glove perforation (23.09 %). An increase in the duration of surgery increased the odds of perforation. It was found that 68.58% of the glove perforations were not identified by practitioners. CONCLUSION: Despite major advances in the design of surgical gloves, the issue of safety and integrity of gloves has not improved. Due to the high incidence of surgical glove perforations, most of which had not been identified, it is imperative to consider strategies to minimize the incidence of perforation. The results of the present study can be used to integrate information related to the rate of perforation of surgical gloves in different surgeries.

Recognition of intraoperative surgical glove perforation: a comparison by surgical role and level of training.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of glove perforation among surgical team members performing a typical set of trauma procedures, as well as to identify the rate at which these people recognize potential perforations. METHODS: Gloves used in orthopedic trauma room procedures were collected from all participating team members over 2 weeks and were subsequently examined for perforations. Perforation rates based on glove position, type, wearer and procedure were assessed. RESULTS: Perforations were found in 5.9% of gloves; 4.3% of the perforations were found in outer gloves and 1.6% in inner gloves. Among the outer gloves, 30.7% of the perforations were recognized by the wearer at the time of perforation; none of the inner glove perforations were recognized, even when they were associated with an accompanying outer glove perforation. Significantly more perforations were identified in the gloves of attending staff than in those of other team members. Attending staff experienced more perforations than other wearers, regardless of whether they were acting as the primary surgeon or as an assistant. Perforations were more common in open reduction internal fixation and amputation procedures. For open reduction internal fixation procedures, longer operative times were associated with more frequent glove perforations. CONCLUSION: The rates of glove perforation are high in orthopedic trauma surgeries, and often these perforations are not recognized by the wearer. Attending staff are at an elevated risk of glove perforation. It is recommended that all members of the surgical team change both pairs of gloves whenever an outer glove perforation is observed.