• S J Wilson, D Sellu, A Uy, and M A Jaffer.
• Department of Surgery, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
• Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1996 Jan 1;78(1):20-2.

AbstractThis randomised trial compared single gloves with combinations of double gloves to determine the subjective effects on comfort, sensitivity and dexterity in 32 surgeons. Glove perforation rates were also compared. Single gloves of the surgeon's normal size (method A) were used as control. Double gloves were worn in three different ways, selected randomly: normal gloves inside and gloves one-half size larger outside (method B); the larger gloves inside and the normal gloves outside (method C); and lastly, two pairs of gloves of normal size (method D). Double gloves by all three methods significantly protected against needle perforation of the inner gloves when compared with single gloves, but also significantly impaired comfort, sensitivity and dexterity. When the three types of double gloving were compared, there appeared to be advantages for method C for all modalities, but the differences did not reach statistical significance; also, more surgeons expressed a preference for method C. Perforation of the inner gloves was significantly less for double gloves than for single gloves. We conclude that double gloves often protect the surgeon against needle perforations, but are felt to impair comfort, sensitivity and dexterity.

16 keywords...

hide…