Microperforations of surgical gloves in urology: minimally invasive versus open surgeries
Tom Feng1, Jithin Yohannan, Angela Gupta
1James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21230, USA.
Introduction:
Surgical glove integrity is important in preventing wound infections and reducing patient mortality. Rates of perforations have been studied in many surgical subspecialties, but glove perforations specific to urology have not been investigated previously. This study aims to determine the incidence of glove perforations during urological surgeries and to investigate differences between open, laparoscopic, and endoscopic procedures.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 180 gloves were collected from various urological procedures performed at our institution: 59 from endoscopic, 72 from laparoscopic, and 49 from open cases. The gloves were tested for defects by both the water load test and electrical conductance testing. The frequency of defects for each type of procedure along with the length of wear, surgeon experience, and glove brand was analyzed.
Results:
Glove defects were detected in 29% of all cases. Microperforations encompassed the majority of the glove defects (23.3%) and were detected in 15.2%, 25.0 %, and 30.6% of the endoscopy, laparoscopic and open surgical cases, respectively. The frequency of perforations noted in the minimally invasive procedures was significantly different across the groups (p < 0.01). There was no statistical significant correlation between glove defects and operation time, surgeon experience, and glove brand.
Conclusions:
The rates of glove perforation (29%) in urological procedures were higher than expected. Given the high rates of glove perforations found, double gloving in urological surgeries may offer a solution to the increased risk for cross contamination from microscopic perforations.
Insights
Surgical glove perforations occurred in 29% of urological procedures, with higher rates in open surgery. Double gloving may mitigate cross-contamination risks from microscopic defects.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Surgical Safety
- Infection Control
Background:
- Surgical glove integrity is crucial for preventing wound infections and patient mortality.
- Previous studies on glove perforations have not focused on urological procedures.
- This study addresses the gap by investigating glove integrity in urology.
Purpose of the Study:
- Determine the incidence of glove perforations in urological surgeries.
- Compare perforation rates across open, laparoscopic, and endoscopic procedures.
- Identify factors influencing glove defects in urology.
Main Methods:
- Collected 180 gloves from endoscopic, laparoscopic, and open urological cases.
- Assessed glove defects using water load and electrical conductance tests.
- Analyzed perforation frequency based on procedure type, wear time, surgeon experience, and glove brand.
Main Results:
- Overall glove defect rate was 29%, with microperforations being most common (23.3%).
- Perforation rates varied significantly across procedure types (p < 0.01).
- No significant correlation found between defects and operation time, surgeon experience, or glove brand.
Conclusions:
- Urological surgeries exhibit a higher-than-anticipated glove perforation rate (29%).
- Microscopic perforations are a significant concern in urological procedures.
- Double gloving is proposed as a strategy to reduce cross-contamination risks.
