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.

No Link Between Inadvertent Surgical Glove Contamination and Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Elective Neurosurgical Operations.

INTRODUCTION: Controllable factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) have focused on reducing contamination of the surgical field with potential pathogens. The aim of this prospective study is to determine the incidence of glove contamination in a series of elective neurosurgical operations and determine the relationship of such glove contamination to subsequent SSI. We hypothesize that contamination of surgical gloves is associated with subsequent SSI. METHODS: In this prospective quality improvement study, gloves of the surgical team were swabbed for standard culture just prior to wound closure of elective neurosurgical operations. Patient characteristics, surgical details, and occurrence of subsequent SSIs were collected retrospectively from the electronic medical records. Data were analyzed with χ2 with Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. RESULTS: Surgical glove contamination occurred in 10 of 96 elective neurosurgical cases (10.4%). SSIs occurred in 6 cases (6.2%), but no SSI occurred in a case in which surgical glove contamination occurred (P = 1). SSI was associated with younger patient age (P = 0.0448), and surgical glove contamination was associated with less resident experience (P = 0.0354). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical glove contamination identified at the time of wound closure does not correlate with the development of subsequent SSI in elective neurosurgical operations.

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.

Impact of Gloves and Mask Use on Epidermal Barrier Function in Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 has rapidly spread all over the world. Personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks and gloves is needed to avoid transmission. Adverse skin reactions associated with PPE have been described, but there is no information regarding objective measures to assess skin impairment related to PPE. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of using facial mask and nitrile gloves on epidermal barrier function and skin homeostasis. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed. Thirty-four health care workers wearing nitrile gloves and a mask for 2 hours were included. Transepidermal water loss, stratum corneum hydration, erythema, and temperature were measured. RESULTS: Transepidermal water loss (31.11 vs 14.24 g·m-2·h-1), temperature (33.29°C vs 32.57°C), and erythema were significantly greater at the area covered by gloves compared with the noncovered area. Transepidermal water loss (22.82 vs 13.69 g·m-2·h-1), temperature, and erythema (411.43 vs 335.52 arbitrary units) were significantly increased at the area covered by mask, whereas stratum corneum hydration was lower. Transepidermal water loss was greater at the area covered by a surgical mask than at a filtering respirator mask coded filtering facepiece 2 (27.09 vs 18.02 g·m-2·h-1, P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Skin homeostasis and epidermal barrier function may be impaired by gloves and mask use. High-quality PPE should be provided, and adequate skin prevention measures should be implemented to reduce epidermal barrier damage.

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.

Endotoxin contamination of single-use sterile surgical gloves.

Aim: Strict endotoxin limits are enforced for implants and catheters inserted into the body. However, no standard limit has been set for single-use sterile surgical gloves. Materials & methods: Four types of gloves sold in Japan were dipped in saline and that endotoxin levels were measured. Cytokine producing activity of gloves in blood was also measured. Results: Three of the four types of gloves showed endotoxin contamination. We also confirmed an increase in cytokine production in these gloves except one glove in which anionic surfactants was found. Conclusion: The extent to which detected endotoxins enter the body during surgery is controversial, but strict endotoxin limits need to be established.

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.

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.

Respiratory Symptoms of Exposure to Substances in the Workplace among Bulgarian Dental Students: a Self-report Questionnaire Survey.

BACKGROUND: Dental students are at high risk of developing adverse respiratory reactions as a result of their practical work during their dentistry degree program when they come into contact with multiple airborne irritants and allergens. AIM: To estimate the prevalence of respiratory symptoms of exposure to substances in the workplace and associated risk factors in Bulgarian dental students. RESULTS: The prevalence of self-reported respiratory symptoms related to the pre-clinical and clinical training courses of the dentistry program was 12.4%. According to logistic regression analysis, the most important risk factors for work-related respiratory symptoms were a personal history of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (odds ratio (OR) 6.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.14-12.78), atopic dermatitis (OR 2.81, 95%CI: 1.26-6.26), and exposure to chemicals from dental environment for more than 6 hours a day (OR 3.60, 95%CI: 1.21-10.70). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that work-related respiratory symptoms are frequent among dental students and indicate the need for efforts to establish effective primary preventive programs for occupational respiratory disorders at national level.

Surgical glove use for specimen removal in laparoscopy, the cheapest available: a prospective study.

Despite the proven benefits of laparoscopic surgery, it is indeed very costly. The aim of our study was to show an effective way to reduce one of the costs. Between January 2012 and December 2018, we used sterile unpowdered latex-free surgical gloves for specimen retrieval in 243 selected cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy. The mean retrieval time was 6.7 ± 3.6 min. All procedures were performed safely. Minor wound infection was noted in three patients but there was no case of port site hernia in our series. We conclude that specimen retrieval using sterile, unpowdered, latex-free surgical gloves is safe, effective and cheap. No special additional preparation is required.

Do surgeons use double gloves during surgery? Results of a survey.

<b>Introduction:</b> The perforation of gloves during surgical procedures is quite common. A cheap and quite effective method of reducing the risk of blood-borne infections is wearing two pairs of gloves. Unfortunately, some surgeons are reluctant to it, and they report decreased dexterity and sensation. The aim of the study was to evaluate surgeons' double-gloving practices to determine the factors related to compliance. <br><b>Material and methods:</b> An anonymous, 21-question survey in Polish was sent by post to 41 surgical departments. The questions concerned: demographic data, type of surgical gloves used, allergy to latex, number of surgeries performed, frequency of using double gloves and negative impressions from using them and finally, the frequency of needlestick injuries during surgical procedures. <br><b>Results:</b> We received 179 questionnaires back. More than 62% of the surgeons believe that double gloves provide better protection than a single pair, 24% do not believe in this, and 14% have no opinion. Only 0.6% of respondents always use double gloves during surgery, 19% double glove in at least 25% of cases and 68% do it occasionally. 13% of the surgeons declared that they had never worn double gloves. During high-risk procedures, 86% of respondents wear double gloves. About half of respondents (50.3%) report discomfort while wearing double gloves; 45% - decreased dexterity; about 30% complain of numbness and tingling; and 64% - decreased sensation. <br><b>Conclusion:</b> Due to the high number of surgical glove perforations and relatively high prevalence of needlestick injuries, it is necessary to use methods that reduce the risk of transmission of pathogens. The habit of using a double pair of gloves should be implemented especially among young surgeons starting to train in their specialities. Consequently, the period of initial discomfort will be combined with the acquisition of surgical skills, which will allow for gradual acclimatization.

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.

Can Nonsterile Gloves for Dermatologic Procedures Be Cost-Effective without Compromising Infection Rates?

Over the last decade, studies have compared the use of sterile gloves (SGs) versus nonsterile gloves (NSGs) on surgical site infection (SSI) rates in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). In this study, we sought to determine SSI rates before and after employment of NSGs for dermatologic procedures. Infection data were collected from January 2009 to December 2015 on 7365 tumors treated with MMS and 1620 tumors treated by surgical excision. For MMS procedures using chlorhexidine as the antiseptic, the SSI rate with SGs was 3.39% compared to 3.06% with NSGs. For surgical excisions, the SSI rate was 3.02% with SGs and 4.17% with NSG. Using NSGs for MMS tumor resection and reconstruction can provide cost savings without adversely affecting SSI rates, and could also be considered in dermatologic procedures, including electrodessication and curettage and surgical excisions.

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.

Statistical analysis plan for the Healthy Hands Project; single centre cluster-randomised clinical trial of a skin care program for the prevention of contact dermatitis in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Hands Project (HHP) is a randomised clinical trial aiming to determine the effectiveness of an intervention program in the prevention of hand dermatitis in healthcare workers (HCWs). The intervention is comprised of placing dispensers with hand creams on wards combined with continuous electronic monitoring of cream consumption and regular feedback to HCWs. The clinical severity (HECSI score) was used as the primary outcome and natural moisturising factor (NMF) levels as the secondary outcome. The study protocol for the cluster-randomised controlled trial of HHP was published in Trials in 2017. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the HHP trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The HHP is a single-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups and blinded outcome assessment. This update article presents (1) the descriptive statistics of the primary and secondary outcomes, (2) the statistical models used for the analysis of the main outcomes, (3) sensitivity analyses on the effect of observed exposure to wet work, (4) handling of missing data including sensitivity analysis and (5) an updated power calculation. This statistical analysis plan was written prior to unblinding of the study. DISCUSSION: This paper presents a comprehensive statistical analysis plan for the data resulting from the HHP trial. It supports transparency in reporting by clarifying differences between the previously published protocol and the proposed actual statistical analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), identification number NTR5564 . Registered on 2 November 2015.