Abstract
To determine the incidence of perforation of surgical gloves and identify associated risk factors that contribute to glove perforation in small animal ophthalmic surgery. Observational cohort study. Surgical gloves (n=2000) collected following 765 small animal ophthalmic procedures. All the gloves were tested for perforation at the end of the procedure using a water leak test. The potential risk factors for glove perforation were recorded, and associations between these risk factors and perforation were explored using univariable (Fisher's exact test) and mixed effect logistic regression analysis. Results were considered significant if P<.05. Glove perforation was detected in 6% of procedures. Glove perforation was 1.97 (95% CI: 0.98-4.22) times more likely in extraocular than in intraocular surgeries (7.3% vs 3.9%; P=.0462). The incidence of perforations was not statistically different between main and assistant surgeon (P=.86). No significant association was found between the risk of glove perforation and duration of the procedure (P=.13). Perforation of the nondominant hand was 2.6 (95% CI: 1.38-4.98) times more likely than the dominant hand (74% vs 26%; P=.0028). Only 22% of the perforations were detected intraoperatively. Multivariable analysis identified only extraocular surgery as a risk factor for perforations. There is a low incidence of glove perforation in small animal ophthalmic surgery, but extra care of the nondominant hand is required, especially during extraocular procedures.
Highlights
IntroductionSurgical gloves are a protective barrier worn during surgical procedures to reduce the risk of pathogen dissemination that can cause infections in the surgeon and the patient.[1]Their integrity is important in maintaining a sterile environment and reducing the possibility of surgical site infections (SSI) that are a considerable concern in veterinary medicine, having been described as a complication in 2.5% to 30% of small animal surgical procedures.[2,3,4,5,6] a search of the veterinary and human ophthalmic literature viaPubmed® resulted in no studies that link glove perforation with infection of ocular tissues, the integrity of surgical gloves is cited as a critical factor to prevent infections in surgery.[7]
There is a low incidence of glove perforation in small animal ophthalmic surgery, but extra care of the non-dominant hand is required, especially during extraocular procedures
Their integrity is important in maintaining a sterile environment and reducing the possibility of surgical site infections (SSI) that are a considerable concern in veterinary medicine, having been described as a complication in 2.5% to 30% of small animal surgical procedures.[2,3,4,5,6]
Summary
Surgical gloves are a protective barrier worn during surgical procedures to reduce the risk of pathogen dissemination that can cause infections in the surgeon and the patient.[1]Their integrity is important in maintaining a sterile environment and reducing the possibility of surgical site infections (SSI) that are a considerable concern in veterinary medicine, having been described as a complication in 2.5% to 30% of small animal surgical procedures.[2,3,4,5,6] a search of the veterinary and human ophthalmic literature viaPubmed® resulted in no studies that link glove perforation with infection of ocular tissues, the integrity of surgical gloves is cited as a critical factor to prevent infections in surgery.[7]. Surgical gloves are a protective barrier worn during surgical procedures to reduce the risk of pathogen dissemination that can cause infections in the surgeon and the patient.[1]. Their integrity is important in maintaining a sterile environment and reducing the possibility of surgical site infections (SSI) that are a considerable concern in veterinary medicine, having been described as a complication in 2.5% to 30% of small animal surgical procedures.[2,3,4,5,6] a search of the veterinary and human ophthalmic literature via. Two large scale studies explored the correlation between glove perforation and SSI and showed that, in the absence of antimicrobial prophylaxis, glove perforation is a risk factor for SSI.[8,9] there are case studies in the literature that have implicated surgical glove perforation with outbreaks of Staphylococcal infection in operated patients.[10,11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
