• Eddie F C Murta, Cléber S Silva, and Odilon R A Júnior.
• Discipline of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Triângulo Mineiro, Av. Getúlio Guaritá, S/N, 38025-440 Uberaba, MG, Brazil. eddiemurta@mednet.com.br
• Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2003 Jun 1; 268 (2): 82-4.

AbstractThe purposes of this prospective study were to verify the frequency of glove perforation during gynecological operations and to evaluate the efficacy of double gloving in preventing damage to the inner glove. From May 2000 to May 2001, three house staff and 12 residents were asked to place their used gloves in bags labeled with the following information: procedure performed, presence of a recognized glove perforation, and role in operating team (surgeon, first or second assistant, and instrumentalist). All glove sets were tested using the method of water pression. Damaged gloves were excluded from that analysis. In all, 35 and 51 operations were utilized with single and double gloves, respectively. There were 240 single gloves and 792 double gloves tested. Perforation occurred in 10.4% of the single gloves and 9.8% of the outer double gloves. There were no cases of perforation in the inner double gloves. In cases of operating time that lasted more than 2 h, 56% of the surgeries that used single gloves had perforation vs 58.5% of the double gloves. The first assistant had the major risk for glove perforation with the use of single or double gloves. The indicator finger of the non-dominant hand was the major risk for perforation. In conclusion, we recommend double gloving in all gynecological surgery to reduce the risk of contracting blood-borne diseases.

7 keywords...

hide…