• M E de Castro-Peraza, E Garzón-Rodríguez, V Rodríguez-Pérez, I Sosa-Alvarez, J Gutierrez-Hernández, and C Asiain-Ugarte.
• Bloque Quirúrgico Central, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Ofra, La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias. mcperaza@telefonica.net
• Enferm Clin. 2010 Mar 1;20(2):73-9.

ObjectiveTo investigate the incidence of glove perforation in programmed surgery and compare perforation rates between single-gloves and double-gloves. To evaluate the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during surgery.MethodRandomized and controlled trial. A one year of study period in 2008 consisting of programmed surgeries at the Canary Islands University Hospital. Gloves, randomized into single or double, worn by surgeons, assistants and scrub nurses were analyzed using the Water Leak Test (EN455-1) for 3 min after surgery ended to detect leakage.ResultsA total of 1537 gloves were examined during 113 operations, 7 perforations were noticed during the operation and 104 unnoticed, especially in mayor surgery. Of these, 43 perforations (41.3%) occurred while wearing single gloves and 51 (49%) in the outer of a double glove. Only 10 perforations (9.6%) were found in the inner glove. The perforation rate for surgeons was 9.85%, were slightly greater than nurses at 6,91%, but significantly greater that the rate for assistants, 4,04% (p<0.001).ConclusionsWe conclude that double gloving is effective in surgery, inasmuch as the barrier protection was maintained by the inner glove in four out of five cases when the outer glove was inadvertently perforated. Surgical teams must balance the improved safety of double gloving with the possible discomfort and reduced sensitivity.Copyright 2009 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.

7 keywords...

hide…