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.

Hair of the Dog? Periprosthetic Joint Infection with Streptococcus can is.

A 61-year-old man underwent elective primary total hip arthroplasty at an academic center and presented to the emergency department 2 weeks later with a periprosthetic infection. Intraoperative cultures were positive for Streptococcus canis. He was successfully treated with one-stage revision and 6 weeks of intravenous cefazolin. It was later determined that the patient has a pet dog who frequently licks his legs. We hypothesize that patients with pets are more likely to carry this pathogen as part of their skin microbiome, and further research is required to establish whether S. canis poses an infectious risk beyond that of normal group B Streptococcus skin flora and if preoperative decolonization strategies are warranted.