Frequency of glove perforations and subsequent blood contact in association with selected obstetric surgical procedures

Abstract

Objective: One purpose of this prospective investigation was to assess the frequency of glove perforations and subsequent blood contact associated with selected obstetric procedures. The second purpose was to assess the relative risk of perforation among different members of the surgical team and determine if time of day or urgency of the procedure affected the frequency of perforation.

Study design: Over a 3-month period, obstetric personnel were asked to double glove for all surgical procedures. After surgery, they placed their gloves in plastic bags and noted the type of procedure, time of day, and position on the surgical team. They also indicated whether they were aware of a glove tear and, if so, whether blood or fluid was on their hands. Gloves were tested for injury by two methods: by inflating them with air and subsequently immersing them in water to detect air bubbles and by directly filling them with water to observe for leaks.

Results: A total of 540 glove sets (2160 individual gloves) were examined; 407 sets were from cesarean deliveries, 65 from puerperal tubal ligations, and 68 from vaginal deliveries. Sixty-seven of the sets (12.4%, 95% confidence interval 9.6% to 15.2%) had at least one hole; the total number of holes was 78. Sixty-six holes were in the outer glove only, and 7 were in the inner glove only. In five sets (0.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.5% to 1.3%) there were matching holes in the outer and inner gloves. In two of these cases (0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.7%) the surgeons noted blood on their hands at the conclusion of the procedure. The difference in frequency of injury in outer versus inner gloves was highly significant (p < 0.005). Forty-six of the 78 holes (59%) were on the thumb or first two fingers of the nondominant hand. Only 2 (3%) of the glove tears were recognized by the surgeon. There was no difference in frequency of glove tears when cesarean sections were classified as urgent versus nonurgent. There also was no difference in frequency of glove tears in procedures performed at night compared with those during the daytime. Surgical nurses had 36% of all glove injuries and were more likely than physicians or medical students to sustain perforations (p < 0.005). Primary surgeons and first assistants were more likely than second assistants to sustain glove injuries (p < 0.05). For primary surgeons and first assistants, level of training did not significantly affect the frequency of glove perforations.

Conclusions: Glove perforations occur in approximately 12% of obstetric surgical procedures. Surgical nurses are at greatest risk for perforation. Double gloving reduces the likelihood of penetrating injury to the inner glove and subsequent risk of blood contact.