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.

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.

Cytopathologic assessment of gloves and instruments after major head and neck surgery.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential for cancer cells to be transferred between anatomic sites via instruments and other materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pilot prospective study from April 2018-January 2019 at Rush University Medical Center. Glove and instrument washings were collected from 18 high-risk head and neck cancer resection cases (36 samples total). Each case maintained at least one of the following features in addition to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma or sarcoma: palliative/salvage surgery, positive margins, extensive tumor burden, and/or extra capsular extension (ECE). Surgical gloves and four main instruments were placed through washings for blind cytological assessment (2 samples/case). RESULTS: 18 patients undergoing surgical tumor resection for biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma with at least one of the aforementioned characteristics were included. 26.7% of cases had ECE, 40.0% had positive final margins and 46.7% had close final margins. Tumor locations included: oral cavity (10), neck (4), parotid gland (2), and skin (2). Malignant cells were isolated on glove washings in 1 case (5.5%). No malignant cells were isolated from instrument washings. The single case of malignant cells on glove washings occurred in a recurrent, invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the scalp with intracranial extension. Anucleated squamous cells likely from surgeon skin were isolated from 94.4% of washings. Squamous cells were differentiated from mature cells by the absence of nuclei. CONCLUSIONS: Malignant squamous cells can be isolated from surgical glove washings, supporting the practice of changing of gloves after gross tumor resection during major head and neck cancer resections.

Making Glove Decision Less of a White Knuckling Experience: A Systematic Review and Inventory of Glove Accelerator Contents.

BACKGROUND: Accelerators in medical gloves are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis among healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of medical and nursing literature, patch testing reports, and chemical analyses of gloves was conducted to assess accelerator contents reported in the literature and to identify accelerator-free gloves. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in OVID Medline and OVID EMBASE. Hand-searching of reference lists of articles in the field and author input generated the remainder of articles assessed. RESULTS: We present an inventory of accelerator contents of gloves and accelerator-free glove options as reported in the literature as a clinical reference tool to assist allergen-free glove selection for individuals suffering from allergic contact dermatitis due to rubber accelerators. LIMITATIONS: Pertinent limitations of our review include lack of predefined study exclusion criteria and screening of the studies identified in the search by 1 review author only. CONCLUSION: The glove inventory we provide summarizes the available literature regarding medical and surgical glove accelerator content, describing gloves both by brand and manufacturer as well as by accelerators.

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.

Targeted Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Rub on Gloves During Task Dense Periods: One Step Closer to Pathogen Containment by Anesthesia Providers in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia providers' hand hygiene practices in the operating room may contribute to the transmission of bacteria. There is a debate, however, over the best approaches for pathogen containment during task dense periods (induction and extubation) of anesthesia care. A novel approach to reducing pathogen spread during these task dense periods is the use of alcohol-based hand rub on gloves when it may be difficult to either change gloves or clean hands. METHODS: To evaluate the impact of alcohol-based hand rub on gloves, we estimated perforation rates of 50 gloves that were worn as pairs by volunteers for 2 hours at a time applying alcohol-based hand rub every 15 minutes (total of 8 alcohol-based hand rub applications per pair of gloves). We also identified perforation rates of 50 new, unused gloves. To evaluate the ability to perform routine anesthesia functions, volunteers were asked to pick up a coin from a table top and document whether the gloves felt normal or sticky at each 15-minute period. RESULTS: Fifty new gloves (not exposed to alcohol-based hand rub) were tested for integrity using the Food and Drug Administration-approved process, and one was found to have a microperforation. Of the 50 gloves that had been applied with alcohol-based hand rub 8 times, no microperforations were identified. All volunteers demonstrated tactile competence by picking up a coin from a table top after 8 alcohol-based hand rub applications; in addition, as the number of alcohol-based hand rub applications progressed, the volunteers reported increased stickiness. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the use of alcohol-based hand rub on commonly used nitrile examination gloves does not compromise glove integrity or hamper the ability to safely perform routine anesthesia functions.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by synthetic rubber gloves in healthcare workers: Sensitization to 1,3-diphenylguanidine is common.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of allergic contact dermatitis has significantly increased in healthcare workers since the transition from latex to synthetic rubber gloves, with 1,3-diphenylguanidine being identified as the most frequently implicated allergen. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the role of 1,3-diphenylguanidine as the culprit allergen in contact allergies to synthetic rubber gloves, to propose recommendations for patch testing, and to discuss alternatives for sensitized subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patch test data from healthcare workers who developed hand dermatitis after wearing rubber gloves and who reacted positively to glove samples and rubber additives were collected from September 2010 to December 2017 in a Belgian hospital. RESULTS: A total of 44 caregivers were included in this study. Patch tests showed that: (a) 84% of the study population reacted positively to carba mix; (b) 86% reacted positively to 1,3-diphenylguanidine; and (c) 13 (30%) reacted positively to thiuram mix. Half of the subjects reacted positively to gloves containing 1,3-diphenylguanidine, whereas none reacted to accelerator-free gloves. CONCLUSION: The most commonly identified allergen was 1,3-diphenylguanidine, far ahead of thiurams, which were previously described as the most sensitizing accelerators. The use of 1,3-diphenylguanidine-free gloves is recommended. No subject reacted to gloves without accelerators, thus confirming their efficiency among accelerator-sensitized patients. We recommend that 1,3-diphenylguanidine be added to the European baseline series.

Accelerator-free gloves as alternatives in cases of glove allergy in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Accelerators in rubber gloves constitute an important group of contact allergens, particularly in healthcare workers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of accelerator-free medical gloves in the secondary prevention of allergic contact dermatitis caused by rubber accelerators in healthcare workers. METHODS: Nine healthcare workers with hand eczema were advised to use accelerator-free rubber gloves after a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis caused by rubber accelerators. RESULTS: Switching from conventional medical single-use gloves containing accelerators to accelerator-free medical gloves led to improvement in all cases, and more than two-thirds of the patients were completely free of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The use of accelerator-free medical gloves can be an effective alternative in healthcare workers who are allergic to rubber accelerators.

Incidence and patterns of surgical glove perforations: experience from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Surgical glove perforation is a common event. The operating staff is not aware of the perforation until the procedure is complete, sometimes in as high as 70% of the incidences. Data from Ethiopia indicates that the surgical workforce suffers from a very surgery related accidents, however there is paucity of data regarding surgical glove perforation. The main objective is to describe the incidence and patterns of surgical glove perforation during surgical procedures and to compare the rates between emergency and elective surgeries at one of the main hospitals in Addis Ababa Ethiopia. METHODS: This is a prospective study, performed at the Minilik II referral hospital, Addis Ababa. All surgical gloves worn during all major surgical procedures (Emergency and Elective) from June 1-July 20, 2016 were collected and used for the study. Standardised visual and hydro insufflation techniques were used to test the gloves for perforations. Parameters recorded included type of procedure performed, number of perforations, localisation of perforation and the roles of the surgical team. RESULTS: A total of 2634 gloves were tested, 1588 from elective and 1026 from emergency procedures. The total rate of perforation in emergency procedures was 41.4%, while perforation in elective surgeries was 30.0%. A statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) was found in between emergency and elective surgeries. There were a very high rate of perforations of gloves among first surgeons 40.6% and scrub nurses 38.8% during elective procedures and among first surgeons (60.14%), and second assistants (53.0%) during emergency surgeries. Only 0.4% of inner gloves were perforated. The left hand, the left index finger and thumb were the most commonly perforated parts of the glove. Glove perforation rate was low among consultant surgeons than residents. CONCLUSIONS: Our reported perforation rate is higher than most publications, and this shows that the surgical workforce in Ethiopia is under a clear and present threat. Measures such as double gloving seems to have effectively prevented cutaneous blood exposure and thus should become a routine for all surgical procedures. Manufacturing related defects and faults in glove quality may also be contributing factors.

Banned Devices; Powdered Surgeon's Gloves, Powdered Patient Examination Gloves, and Absorbable Powder for Lubricating a Surgeon's Glove. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that Powdered Surgeon's Gloves, Powdered Patient Examination Gloves, and Absorbable Powder for Lubricating a Surgeon's Glove present an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury and that the risk cannot be corrected or eliminated by labeling or a change in labeling. Consequently, FDA is banning these devices.

Ten years incidence of natural rubber latex sensitization and symptoms in a prospective cohort of health care workers using non-powdered latex gloves 2000-2009.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of sensitization and gloves-related symptoms in 10-year follow-up in a group of health care workers (9,660 person-years) using non-powdered latex gloves from 2000 to 2009 and to examine related factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 2,053 health care workers in Trieste Hospitals by means of skin prick test for latex extract, patch tests and medical examinations. We report the incidence of latex sensitization among workers using non-powdered latex gloves. RESULTS: The incidence of latex sensitization, rhinitis, asthma, urticaria, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis were 1.0; 0.12; 0.21; 0.72; 2.39 and 2.50 cases per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Respiratory symptoms and urticaria were positively related with latex sensitization (OR = 8.0; 95 % CL 1.27-48.6), with common allergic respiratory symptoms (OR = 4.19; 95 % CL 1.04-16.8) and with familial atopy (OR = 4.47; 95 % CL 1.1-17.9). CONCLUSION: The incidence of latex sensitization and latex-related symptoms were very low but subjects with allergic symptoms related to common allergens are at higher risk. The use of non-latex gloves is suggested for them.

Triphenylguanidine, a new (old?) rubber accelerator detected in surgical gloves that may cause allergic contact dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Rubber accelerators are common contact allergens in healthcare personnel, owing to exposures from medical gloves. OBJECTIVES: To analyse glove extracts used for patch testing for the presence of guanidine-type accelerators, and to describe the results of patch testing with triphenylguanidine (TPG) in 2 cases of contact allergy and with TPG added to the rubber series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection were used for analysis of glove extracts. Patch tests were performed with guanidine accelerators detected in the extracts. RESULTS: TPG, an accelerator not previously reported as being present in rubber gloves, was found in the glove extracts. Patch testing with TPG showed relevant contact allergic reactions in patients with hand dermatitis caused by rubber gloves. CONCLUSIONS: Chemical analysis of extracts for patch testing is important in the identification of new possible allergens. In this case, a rubber accelerator previously not reported as a possible contact allergen was found in extracts of surgical gloves.

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses.

BACKGROUND: An increased frequency of occupational contact hand dermatitis among surgical operating theatre personnel has been noticed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients with occupational contact dermatitis caused by their rubber gloves, and to describe a method for analysing the content of the allergens in the gloves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patch tests were performed with the baseline series, a rubber chemical series, and the patients' own gloves. A method for analysing 1,3-diphenylguanidine (DPG) and cetylpyridinium chloride in the gloves was developed. RESULTS: Contact allergy to thiuram mix was found in 8 of 16 patients, whereas 12 of 16 patients reacted to DPG. In 7 of 8 patients, contact allergy to cetylpyridinium chloride was found. In the patients' gloves, cetylpyridinium chloride and DPG were detected at higher concentrations on the inside of the gloves than on the outside. Most patients had worked for decades in their present occupations, but their hand dermatitis had only been present for months. CONCLUSION: Contact allergy to DPG in gloves has been disputed, but, in this study, we were able to confirm the presence of DPG and cetylpyridinium chloride in the causative gloves by using a modified method for the analysis. The presence of these chemicals in gloves caused an increase in occupational contact dermatitis in surgical operating theatre personnel.

A randomized prospective study of glove perforation in orthopaedic surgery: is a thick glove more effective?

We compared perforation rates among operative staff who were randomly assigned either thick latex surgical gloves or conventional gloves for use in performing total knee arthroplasty. A total of 1120 gloves were assessed in 70 total knee arthroplasties. Additionally, the degree of tactile sensitivity provided by the gloves was compared using a two-point discrimination (TPD) test. Perforation occurred in 27 surgeries (38.5%) and in 48 gloves (4.29%). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the operator was a risk factor for perforation rate (Odds ratio 14.448, P < .0.01) and that the type of glove was not (P = .896). In the TPD test, tactile sensitivity was lower for a thick outer glove than the conventional double glove (P < .001 for each site). Not only did thick surgical gloves lower tactile sensitivity, they also offered no superior protective effect over conventional gloves.