Evaluation of surgical glove perforation after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical gloves provide a protective barrier against blood-born pathogens. Studies reveal glove perforation rates of up to 45%, which are often unrecognized by the surgeon or nurse. The goal of this study was to evaluate how often glove perforation occurs after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. METHODS: Gloves from the operating surgeon and the first assistant were collected after operation and tested immediately using two methods : 1. Water leak test - the approved standardized method to detect holes after filling up the gloves with 1000ml of water. 2. Electrical resistance test - method to detect gloves conductivity immersed in saline bath. RESULTS: Altogether, 376 gloves were studied. The overall perforation rate was 8%. Perforations more frequently were observed after laparoscopic than open cholecystectomy. The gloves worn by the operator were more likely to be perforated than those worn by the assistant surgeon in both types of operations. The most common site of perforation was in the index finger of the non- dominant hand. Thirty percent of gloves conducted electrical current, while 22% of them had no macroscopic evidence of perforation. CONCLUSION: Many of gloves might have microperforations that can not be detected using water leak test.

Kidney transplantation in recipients with mental retardation: clinical results in a single-center experience.

Mental retardation has been a controversial relative contraindication to organ transplantation. Currently, there are few data available in the literature that describe the outcome of kidney transplantation in mentally retarded patients. In a series of 1,271 kidney transplantations performed between January 1968 and March 1996, we identified eight patients (0.6%) with significant mental retardation (IQ < 70). Only cooperative patients supervised by a reliable long-term caregiver, with long life expectancy, and able to take medication under supervision, were accepted as candidates, independent of the IQ level. At a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, seven patients are alive with functioning grafts, and one lost the kidney to chronic rejection 10 years after transplantation and died of sepsis after resuming dialysis. The 1- and 5-year patient and graft survival are thus 100%. Compliance with immunosuppressive treatment and clinical follow-up was excellent in all of the recipients. The patient quality of life and health were judged by the support persons as highly improved after transplantation in comparison to dialysis. We conclude that kidney transplantation in properly selected patients with mental retardation provides excellent patient and graft survival rates and improves quality of life. In such patients, the presence of mental retardation should not be considered a contraindication to kidney transplantation.