Skip to main content
PMC home page
Postgraduate Medical Journal logoLink to Postgraduate Medical Journal
. 2001 Jul;77(909):458–460. doi: 10.1136/pmj.77.909.458

Intraoperative glove perforation—single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination

S Thomas 1, M Agarwal 1, G Mehta 1
PMCID: PMC1760980  PMID: 11423598

Abstract

Surgeons have the highest risk of contact with patients' blood and body fluids, and breaches in gloving material may expose operating room staff to risk of infections. This prospective randomised study was done to assess the effectiveness of the practice of double gloving compared with single gloving in decreasing finger contamination during surgery.
In 66 consecutive surgical procedures studied, preoperative skin abrasions were detected on the hands of 17.4% of the surgeons. In the double gloving pattern, 32 glove perforations were observed, of which 22 were in the outer glove and 10 in the inner glove. Only four outer glove perforations had matching inner glove perforations, thus indicating that in 82% of cases when the outer glove is perforated the inner glove will protect the surgeon's hand from contamination. The presence of visible skin contamination was also higher in perforation with the single gloving pattern (42.1%) than with the double gloving pattern (22.7%).
An overwhelming majority of glove perforations (83.3%) went unnoticed. Double gloving was accepted by the majority of surgeons, especially with repeated use. It is recommended that double gloves are used routinely in all surgical procedures in view of the significantly higher protection it provides.


Keywords: gloves; skin contamination; surgery

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (67.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bennett B., Duff P. The effect of double gloving on frequency of glove perforations. Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Dec;78(6):1019–1022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett N. T., Howard R. J. Quantity of blood inoculated in a needlestick injury from suture needles. J Am Coll Surg. 1994 Feb;178(2):107–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. COLE W. R., BERNARD H. R. INADEQUACIES OF PRESENT METHODS OF SURGICAL SKIN PREPARATION. Arch Surg. 1964 Jul;89:215–222. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1964.01320010217024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dodds R. D., Guy P. J., Peacock A. M., Duffy S. R., Barker S. G., Thomas M. H. Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg. 1988 Oct;75(10):966–968. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800751009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Green S. E., Gompertz R. H. Glove perforation during surgery: what are the risks? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992 Sep;74(5):306–308. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Heald A. E., Ransohoff D. F. Needlestick injuries among resident physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 Sep-Oct;5(5):389–393. doi: 10.1007/BF02599422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Katz J. N., Gobetti J. P., Shipman C., Jr Fluorescein dye evaluation of glove integrity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989 Mar;118(3):327–331. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1989.0115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lowenfels A. B., Wormser G. P., Jain R. Frequency of puncture injuries in surgeons and estimated risk of HIV infection. Arch Surg. 1989 Nov;124(11):1284–1286. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1989.01410110038007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McCue S. F., Berg E. W., Saunders E. A. Efficacy of double-gloving as a barrier to microbial contamination during total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981 Jun;63(5):811–813. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McGeer A., Simor A. E., Low D. E. Epidemiology of needlestick injuries in house officers. J Infect Dis. 1990 Oct;162(4):961–964. doi: 10.1093/infdis/162.4.961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McKinney W. P., Young M. J. The cumulative probability of occupationally-acquired HIV infection: the risks of repeated exposures during a surgical career. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990 May;11(5):243–247. doi: 10.1086/646161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mead P. B. AIDS: risk to the health profession. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Sep;32(3):485–496. doi: 10.1097/00003081-198909000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Miller J. M. William Stewart Halsted and the use of the surgical rubber glove. Surgery. 1982 Sep;92(3):541–543. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nelson J. B., Mital A. An ergonomic evaluation of dexterity and tactility with increase in examination/surgical glove thickness. Ergonomics. 1995 Apr;38(4):723–733. doi: 10.1080/00140139508925144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Paulssen J., Eidem T., Kristiansen R. Perforations in surgeons' gloves. J Hosp Infect. 1988 Jan;11(1):82–85. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(88)90043-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rosenberg J., Becker C. E., Cone J. E. How an occupational medicine physician views current blood-borne disease risks in health-care workers. Occup Med. 1989;4 (Suppl):3–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Postgraduate Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES