Glove Perforation Research Articles

Medical glove durability during exposure to different solvent agents: an ex-vivo experimental study

BackgroundMedical professionals are constantly exposed to bodily fluids and sanitizing agents during routine medical procedures. Unbeknownst to many healthcare workers, however, the barrier integrity of medical gloves can be altered when exposed to these substances, potentially resulting in exposure to dangerous pathogens.MethodsThis experimental study was designed to test the hypothesis that the durability of both natural and synthetic solvent-exposed medical gloves will be lower than the durability of the gloves in air. The testing consisted of a sample of commercially available medical gloves exposed to 70% ethanol, phosphate buffered saline, and deionized water, aimed at simulating the environments in which medical gloves are commonly worn. Gloves were included in this study based on their performance in previous durability studies in air. Data were collected over a period of three months. The glove assessment device automatically detects pinhole-sized perforations in medical gloves, eliminating the need to visually inspect each glove. Relative durability was measured as the average number of sandpaper touches until glove puncture.ResultsFour out of five glove brands performed better when exposed to all three solvents than in air, which is likely due to slippage in the interface between the wet glove and the sandpaper. Sensicare Micro, a polyisoprene surgical glove, had the most consistent durability in all three solvents tested. A two-way ANOVA revealed that both glove brand (P = 0.0001), solvent (P = 0.0001), and their interaction (P = 0.0040, α = 0.05) significantly affected average glove durability.ConclusionsGlove durability did not remain consistent in 70% ethanol, phosphate buffered saline, deionized water, and air. These results make it clear that additional testing and labeling information would help healthcare workers select gloves for use in specific environments to ensure the best barrier protection against disease or toxins.

EFFECTIVENESS OF DOUBLE-GLOVING METHOD ON PREVENTION OF SURGICAL GLOVE PERFORATIONS AND BLOOD CONTAMINATION: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Objectives: To evaluate efficacy of double gloving to provide mechanical barrier against communicable diseases and also to evaluate different parameters affecting glove perforation rate. Methods: This prospective study was performed in department of General Surgery at tertiary care teaching hospital of Gujarat. This study involved a group of surgeons and operation theatre nursing staff. Randomization of the participants was done with the closed envelope method in two groups: single gloving and double gloving. Glove perforation rate and hand contamination rate was calculated and compared between both the groups. Participants of double gloving groups were also asked for discomfort using double gloves and compromised tactile sensations. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the glove perforation rate between single gloves and double outer gloves. (p=0.55) But, the glove perforation rate was significantly low in double inner gloves than single gloves. (p=0.004) The hand contamination rate was significantly lower amongst perforated double gloves than perforated single gloves. (p=0.00001) Awareness of glove perforation was absent in majority of the participants in both the groups. All the participants in the double gloving group were comfortable with using double gloves and their tactile sensations were not compromised. Conclusion: This study concluded that double gloving efficiently prevented hand contaminations during a surgery. There was no significant difference noted in glove perforation rates in both single and double gloving groups. Double gloving is recommended for the surgeons and nursing staff to protect them from blood borne infections and eliminate the chances of surgical site infections in the patients.

Does exposure to polymethyl methacrylate bone cement increase the risk of surgical glove failure?

Surgical glove perforation has been linked to a double-fold increased risk of surgical site infection. Infection in the context of arthroplasty can have devastating consequences. In orthopaedics, use of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is commonplace, and the impact on glove strength and perforation risk is not fully understood. This study aimed to examine the resistance to perforation and thickness of gloves following PMMA exposure, in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for glove integrity. Pairs of gloves were separated and randomly sorted into exposure and control groups. Twenty pairs of latex and 40 pairs of polyisoprene gloves were used. Exposure group glove cuffs were in contact with cement from a single surface of the glove for 13 min as cement cured. Force to perforation and glove thickness were tested in accordance with ISO guidelines. Latex gloves were found to have a significantly increased force to perforation following PMMA exposure (10.26 Newtons (N) vs. 9.81 N, P = 0.048). Both polyisoprene under- and over-gloves were shown to have no significant change in strength to perforation post exposure (9.69 N vs. 9.83 N, P = 0.561, and 10.26 N vs. 10.65 N, P = 0.168, respectively). All groups were over the ISO standard minimum strength of 5 N. Exposure of latex and polyisoprene surgical gloves to PMMA bone cement does not appear to increase glove perforation risk and rather may improve natural rubber latex glove strength. This study supports the use of latex and polyisoprene surgical gloves in procedures that involve the handling of PMMA bone cement.

Comparison between screw retained arch bars and conventional Erich’s arch bar in maxillofacial fractures

: Establishing a stable occlusion and Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is a cornerstone for rigid fixation. Conventional Erich’s arch bar poses a risk of wire stick injury, and extrusion of teeth, and is unsuitable for patients with periodontally compromised teeth or edentulous dentition. There is a dearth of literature comparing modified Screw retained arch bars to the Conventional Erich’s arch bar. Hence, a study was conducted to evaluate the same.: The study compared 30 patients requiring MMF. Group A patients received modified SRAB and group B patients received CEAB. The primary predictor variable was the use of conventional Erich arch bars versus modified screw-retained arch bars. The parameters considered were time taken to place the arch bar, perforation in the gloves, patient compliance, stability, oral hygiene, mouth opening, and post-op occlusion.: The mean time taken for placement of the modified SRAB was lower (27.87 mins) as compared to the CEAB (90.20 mins). The rate of glove perforation was higher in the CEAB group. All patients were compliant in the modified SRAB group as compared to the control group (30%). There was no significant difference in the mouth opening between the two groups.: Based on the study results, we can conclude that modified SRAB is a superior alternative compared to CEAB in maxillomandibular fractures. The usage of modified SRAB does not affect the functional outcome of fracture management.

A randomized trial comparing the intraoperative durability of double-gloving with Biogel® surgical gloves to 3 comparators.

To determine and compare the intraoperative durability of 4 major surgical glove brands. This study is a randomized open-label clinical trial in which surgical gloves from 4 manufacturers are randomized to 5 surgical subspecialty study groups: (1) orthopedic surgery, (2) neurosurgery, (3) colorectal surgery, (4) trauma or acute general surgery, and (5) cardiac and plastic surgeries. The study was divided into 10 periods, with a cross-over design, and was conducted at a tertiary care academic medical center. Participants were licensed and certified physicians, physicians-in-training, scrub nurses, or technicians working within the sterile field. Participants from each study group were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 surgical glove manufacturer types and subsequently rotated through the other 3 glove brands such that each participant acted as their own control in the sequential cross-over design. The primary outcome was to determine and compare the intraoperative failure rate of Biogel® Sterile Surgical undergloves against sterile surgical undergloves from 3 other manufacturers, both as a combined competitor group and individually. There were no differences between brands with respect to the primary outcome of underglove intraoperative failures. Brand 1 wearers were slightly more likely to detect glove failures when they occurred. The durability of surgical gloves intraoperatively is similar across 4 major glove manufacturers. Detection of intraoperative failures is infrequent, though specific glove characteristics may promote enhanced detection. Recognition of glove perforations intraoperatively is important in the maintenance of a maximally sterile field. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03344354.

Time to consider blunt needles for implant surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis shows that blunt suture needles reduce glove perforation

BackgroundDespite a recent Cochrane Review demonstrating blunt suture needles are safer for surgeons, the use of blunt suture needles has not become widely adopted. In the ‘Implant Era’, with the value of medical implant companies to surpass $145 billion by 2027, should we re-examine the use of blunt suture needles, especially to reduce infection in implant surgery? We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing whether blunt suture needles reduce risks to surgeons and patients. MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for RCTs. Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the MH method. Random or fixed effects modelling use was based on statistical heterogeneity (I2). Results14 RCTs were identified with 2488 patients. The RCTs included laparotomies, caesarean sections, episiotomies, and orthopaedic surgeries. Blunt suture needles when compared with sharp needles resulted in a significant reduction in glove perforation; RR: 0.47, 95% CI [0.37 to 0.60] and needlestick injuries, RR: 0.50, 95% CI [0.26 to 0.97]. Sharp needles caused more wound infections, but the result was not statistically significant; RR: 2.73, 95% CI [0.54 to 13.76], p 0.22. Surgeon's satisfaction decreased with blunt needles compared with sharp (RR: 1.22, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.37]). ConclusionBlunt suture needles are safer than sharp needles for surgeons and likely reduce risks to patients. This, however, comes at the cost of decreased ease of use. The authors recommend the routine use of blunt suture needles, especially in implant surgery.

Evaluation of Surgical Glove Perforation and Sharps Injury in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

The risk of exposure to infections during surgery is partly mitigated by gloving. However, perforation can reduce the effectiveness of gloving as a barrier to exposure. This study aimed at investigating the frequency of surgical glove perforation and factors predictive of these in our oral and maxillofacial surgical practice. The study was carried out at the National Hospital and the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital, Abuja, Nigeria. Consenting patients requiring oral surgical interventions were consecutively recruited into the study. Similarly, surgeons and their assistants who consented to the study were also enlisted in the study. At the end of every surgical procedure, gloves used by the surgeons and the assistants were tested for perforation. Variables investigated included the rate of perforations, the influence of the type of gloving, single versus double gloving, type of anaesthesia, and duration of surgery on rates. At a minimum of three operators per procedure, a total of 154 participants were involved in the study and 895 gloves were used. The number of glove perforations was 117(13.1%) with 82 (70.1%) involving the surgeons. There were 58/117 (49.6%) cases of perforation involving the dominant hand. Forefinger glove perforation accounted for 62 (52.9%) cases. Wire-related perforations were 72 (61.5%). Overall, nine cases of percutaneous injury were recorded. Duration of operation and double gloving were the predictive factors for perforations. Risk of sharps injury was relatively high due to the high incidence of glove perforation.

Glove perforation in selected surgical procedures in a general hospital in La Habana, Cuba

SummaryBackgroundSurgical glove perforation constitutes a risk for the maintenance of aseptic technique and the risk of surgical site infection and occupational exposure to blood borne infections for healthcare workers.AimTo identify the frequency of glove perforation in selected surgical procedures.MethodsA cross-sectional descriptive observational study was carried out in the surgical unit of the Joaquin Albarrán Hospital (La Habana, Cuba) during the period September–December 2019. Gloves used by surgeons in major urgent or elective surgical procedures were collected and tested for perforations.Findings757 gloves from 149 surgeons and 8 surgical specialties were tested and 95 (25.8%) had perforations. The highest frequencies of glove perforations were reported in vascular surgery (50.0%), proctology (37.9%), urology (28.0%) and general surgery (26.1%). The selected surgical procedures with the highest frequencies were open radical nephrectomy (87.5%), splenectomy (57.1%), open adenomectomy (55.6%), limb amputation (46.2%) and hysterectomy (41.7%). Glove perforation occurred more frequently in consultant surgeons (28.8%) than in residents (20.9%) (P = 0.021), in surgeons with more years of surgical experience (P = 0.003) and longer procedure duration (P = <0.001). Most glove perforations were identified in the left hand (64.1%), while 23.1% were in the right hand and 12.8% in both hands. 51.2% occurred in thumb and index finger. Differences in the patterns of glove perforation were observed among the different surgical procedures.ConclusionsOur findings provide insights into the risk of glove perforation during selected surgical procedures and the need for prevention strategies to reduce adverse consequences of glove perforation in patients and healthcare workers.

Wearable Natural Rubber Latex Gloves with Curcumin for Torn Glove Detection in Clinical Settings.

Glove tear or perforation is a common occurrence during various activities that require gloves to be worn, posing a significant risk to the wearer and possibly others. This is vitally important in a clinical environment and particularly during surgical procedures. When a glove perforation occurs (and is noticed), the glove must be replaced as soon as possible; however, it is not always noticeable. The present article is focused on the design and development of a novel fluorescence-based sensing mechanism, which is integrated within the glove topology, to help alert the wearer of a perforation in situ. We hypothesized that natural rubber gloves with curcumin infused would yield fluorescence when the glove is damaged, particularly when torn or punctured. The glove design is based on double-dipping between Natural Rubber Latex (NRL) and an inner layer of latex mixed with curcumin, which results in a notable bright yellow-green emission when exposed to UV light. Curcumin (Cur) is a phenolic chemical found primarily in turmeric that fluoresces yellowish-green at 525 nm. The tear region on the glove will glow, indicating the presence of a Cur coating/dipping layer beneath. NRL film is modified by dipping it in a Cur dispersion solution mixed with NRL for the second dipping layer. Using Cur as a filler in NRL also has the distinct advantage of allowing the glove to be made stronger by evenly distributing it throughout the rubber phase. Herein, the optimized design is fully characterized, including physicochemical (fluorescence emission) and mechanical (tensile and tear tests) properties, highlighting the clear potential of this novel and low-cost approach for in situ torn glove detection.

What Role Does a Colored Under Glove Have in Detecting Glove Perforation in Foot and Ankle Procedures?

Many orthopaedic surgical teams practice double gloving or use colored indicator gloving techniques to reduce contamination intraoperatively. Although the likelihood of glove perforation can be affected by the procedure type and surgeon habits, as well as the surgeon's technique, these factors have not been considered to determine the glove perforation rate, and the role of a colored under glove during operations seems less investigated. (1) What proportion of foot and ankle procedures result in perforation of outer gloves or under gloves? (2) What factors (such as the type or duration of operation) appear to be associated with the likelihood of glove perforation? (3) Does the use of a colored indicator under glove make it more likely that a surgeon would perceive the perforation of an outer glove intraoperatively? Between September 2020 and August 2021, the author performed 577 surgical foot or ankle procedures. Of those, patients who underwent subsequent operations under general or spinal anesthesia were considered as potentially eligible. Further, 16% (93) were excluded because the procedures were performed with the patient under local anesthesia, and another 1% (eight patients) were not analyzed (incomplete datasets for emergency operations performed at night). Finally, 82% (476 patients) were examined. To ensure statistical independence, gloves used in right-side operations in bilateral procedures and the most proximal surgery in unilateral procedures were included. Preoperatively, the surgeon was randomly assigned to use either a combination of two regular surgical gloves or a regular outer glove worn over a colored indicator under glove. Patient diagnosis, type of procedure, tourniquet time, and gloving type were recorded. There was no difference in potentially relevant confounding variables, such as the proportion of procedures performed on bone (78% [188 of 242] versus 83% [195 of 234]; p = 0.13), nor in tourniquet time (58 ± 30 minutes versus 62 ± 31 minutes; p = 0.45) between the regular glove and indicator glove groups. At the end of each procedure, the surgeon was asked whether he believed either the outer or under glove was perforated, and whether the use of a colored under glove increased the proportion of procedures in which the surgeon correctly ascertained that a perforation had occurred. To determine the proportion of gloves that were perforated, a standardized water-leak method was used, and the proportion of gloves with perforations based on several parameters of interest, including bone versus soft tissue operation and tourniquet time, was compared. During 476 foot and ankle procedures, the overall glove perforation proportion was 19% (92 of 476 procedures). Under-glove perforation was observed in 4% (17 of 476 procedures) of the operations. There was no difference in glove perforation proportions between bone and soft tissue operations (76 of 383 versus 16 of 93; odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 1.52; p = 0.56). As tourniquet time (operation time) increased, the glove perforation proportion also increased (Exp[B] = 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03; p < 0.001). The use of indicator under gloves increased the surgeon's intraoperative detection of glove perforation (in 68% of procedures [32 of 47] versus 29% [13 of 45]; OR = 5.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 12.8; p < 0.001). Surgical glove perforation occurred in approximately one of five foot and ankle procedures. Based on the results of this study, I recommend using colored indicator under gloves and replacing the under glove when replacing the outer glove after perforation is seen in order to detect contamination early and reduce any intraoperative contamination related to glove injury. Level I, therapeutic study.

A randomized controlled trial on cross infection control in maxillofacial trauma surgery a comparison of intermaxillary fixation techniques

Aim: The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the intermaxillary fixation techniques in maxillofacial trauma surgery in terms of cross infection control. Methodology: A randomized controlled trial which included 120 patients with fractures of the mandible requiring open reduction and fixation. The participants were allocated either to the study group and treated with intraoperative Rapid IMF or to the control group and managed with intraoperative eyelet wire ties. Results: Rapid IMF group had significantly fewer glove perforations than the traditional method (0.67 per operation compared with 1.5), (P &lt; 0.0001). The incidence of skin-penetrating injuries was the same in both groups (rate 0.02/ procedure). The application of Rapid IMF was significantly faster than wiring (P &lt; 0.0001). Minor intraoperative complications were noted in both groups, but more in the Rapid IMF group. Most concerned loosening or fracture of the anchorage ties but the surgical outcome was not affected. Conclusion: Rapid IMF is a safer alternative to wiring methods with significant reduction in glove perforation rates and is quicker to apply than conventional wiring techniques.

The global incidence and associated factors of surgical gloves perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgeon's hands are exposed to a range of chemical and physical stressors that influence the integrity of gloves. Thus, glove perforation facilitates pathogen transmission through the holes. Numerous studies have shown that glove perforation is of great importance, but there is still no complete consensus. This study aimed to investigate the safety conditions of surgical gloves based on the incidence of glove perforation among surgical teams. A literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ISI, and ProQuest databases. The incidence of glove perforation was reviewed in eight categories. A total of 580 articles were found in the initial search. 109 articles containing 130 datasets were analyzed. The overall incidence of glove perforation was 14.44 %. Surgeons had the highest incidence of glove perforation (23.09 %). An increase in the duration of surgery increased the odds of perforation. It was found that 68.58% of the glove perforations were not identified by practitioners. Despite major advances in the design of surgical gloves, the issue of safety and integrity of gloves has not improved. Due to the high incidence of surgical glove perforations, most of which had not been identified, it is imperative to consider strategies to minimize the incidence of perforation. The results of the present study can be used to integrate information related to the rate of perforation of surgical gloves in different surgeries.

Recognition of intraoperative surgical glove perforation: a comparison by surgical role and level of training.

Background:The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of glove perforation among surgical team members performing a typical set of trauma procedures, as well as to identify the rate at which these people recognize potential perforations.Methods:Gloves used in orthopedic trauma room procedures were collected from all participating team members over 2 weeks and were subsequently examined for perforations. Perforation rates based on glove position, type, wearer and procedure were assessed.Results:Perforations were found in 5.9% of gloves; 4.3% of the perforations were found in outer gloves and 1.6% in inner gloves. Among the outer gloves, 30.7% of the perforations were recognized by the wearer at the time of perforation; none of the inner glove perforations were recognized, even when they were associated with an accompanying outer glove perforation. Significantly more perforations were identified in the gloves of attending staff than in those of other team members. Attending staff experienced more perforations than other wearers, regardless of whether they were acting as the primary surgeon or as an assistant. Perforations were more common in open reduction internal fixation and amputation procedures. For open reduction internal fixation procedures, longer operative times were associated with more frequent glove perforations.Conclusion:The rates of glove perforation are high in orthopedic trauma surgeries, and often these perforations are not recognized by the wearer. Attending staff are at an elevated risk of glove perforation. It is recommended that all members of the surgical team change both pairs of gloves whenever an outer glove perforation is observed.

Comparison of Unnoticed Glove Perforations during Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: Various studies have depicted the incidence of glove perforations during open (OS) and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the incidence of macroscopic and microscopic glove perforations during MIS and OS. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE) were systematically searched for comparative studies depicting the glove perforation rates during MIS and OS. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for both the outcomes (dichotomous) and the Mantel–Haenszel method was utilized for the estimation of pooled RR. The methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent investigators using the Downs and Black scale. The main outcomes of the study were the proportion of gloves with gross (macroscopic) perforations and the proportion of gloves with microscopic perforations. Results: Four comparative studies including a total of 1428 gloves (435 from the MIS group) were included. Pooling the data demonstrated no difference in the incidence of macroscopic glove perforations among the MIS and OS groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.54, p = 0.27). On the other hand, the incidence of microscopic perforations was significantly higher in the OS group versus the MIS group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95, p = 0.02). However, all the studies had a moderate risk of bias. Conclusions: When compared to OS, the macroscopic glove perforation rate during MIS showed no significant difference. The incidence of microscopic glove perforations was significantly higher during OS as compared to MIS. However, due to the moderate risk of bias of the available comparative studies, the level of evidence of these studies is limited.

Exposure to blood and body fluids during surgical glove perforation.

Exposure to blood and body fluids during surgical glove perforation.

Surgical glove perforation during laparoscopic colorectal procedures.

BackgroundIt has been reported that in conventional open surgery, approximately 10% of surgical gloves are perforated during surgery without being noticed. To protect both the patient and medical staff from harm, double gloving or changing gloves routinely at certain intervals during surgery is recommended. However, whether these protective measures are also necessary for laparoscopic colorectal surgery is unknown because the actual perforation rate during laparoscopic procedures is unclear.MethodsSeventy-seven laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were evaluated, and a total of 616 surgical gloves used in the surgeries were collected for analysis. The presence of glove perforation was tested by the standard water-leak test method (EN455-1).ResultsSeven perforations were detected (1.1%). The duration of the laparoscopic procedure was not a statistically significant risk factor for glove perforation (p = 0.41). Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) were observed in 12 cases (15.6%), but there was no significant correlation between the presence of glove perforation and SSI (p = 0.92). According to the bacterial cultivation results, the majority of causative agents of SSI were enterobacteria, which belong to the major gut flora.ConclusionAlthough the perforation rate was considerably lower than that in open surgery, surgical glove perforation occurred during laparoscopic procedures. Double gloving in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is recommended not to prevent SSI but to protect medical workers from harmful infections after direct contact with the patient.

Perforations of tri-layer nitrile-latex and natural rubber latex gloves during ex-vivo equine intestinal anastomoses.

To compare perforation rates between tri-layer nitrile-latex and natural rubber latex surgical gloves after single-layer end-to-end jejunojejunal anastomoses in equine cadavers. Prospective randomized ex-vivo study. Pairs of surgical gloves (n=46) worn during jejunojejunal anastomoses. Tri-layer nitrile-latex and rubber latex pairs of gloves were equally but randomly allocated to a right-handed surgeon performing 46 single-layer end-to-end jejunojejunal anastomoses on cadaveric material. Number and location of perforations were determined with the water leak test after each procedure. Ten unused pairs of both glove types were tested as controls. At least one perforation occurred in 41% (19/46) of the pairs of gloves. Glove perforations were present in 22% (5/23; 95% CI: 9-42) of tri-layer glove pairs and 61% (14/23; 95% CI: 41-78) of the rubber glove pairs. The odds of glove perforation were 5.6 times (p=.009, 95% CI: 1.5-20.5) lower when tri-layer rather than rubber gloves were used. The duration of procedure did not affect the risk of glove perforation (p=.679). No perforations were observed in the unused gloves. Perforations were less common when the surgeon wore tri-layer nitrile-latex gloves rather than to the natural rubber latex gloves tested in this study. Tri-layer nitrile-latex gloves were more resistant to perforations in experimental settings; further studies may confirm that they are also superior in a clinical setting.

TO COMPARE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERMAXILLARY FIXATION USING ERICH ARCH BAR AND SCREWS IN MANDIBULAR FRACTURES – A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL STUDY.

Purpose: Intermaxillary xation (IMF) is an essential principle in the management of mandibular fractures; but with the recent advent of open reduction and internal xation (ORIF), the use of IMF is almost limited to intraoperative procedure only. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness of Erich arch bar &amp; intermaxillary xation (IMF) screws for the management of mandibular fractures. Materials And Method: A randomized prospective study was conducted on 20 patients with mandibular fracture, who were randomly allotted to two groups. Group A patients received intermaxillary xation using Erich arch bar and group B patients received IMF screws. The parameters assessed were time taken for application and removal of appliance, stability of occlusion, glove perforation, and pre-and post-operative plaque accumulation. Results: The mean time for placement of the Erich arch bar was 43.10 minutes as compared to 18.60 minutes with intermaxillary xation screws. Better occlusal stability was shown with an arch bar over IMF screws, and was statistically signicant. More glove tears or penetrations occurred during application in group A than Group B (p&lt;0.01). Also, The Plaque Index assessment on removal of appliance showed a statistically signicant difference between the two groups; higher in the arch bar group. Conclusion: This study indicates that with acceptable occlusal stability, IMF screws technique is an effective and favourable alternative to Erich arch bars for temporary intermaxillary xation in mandibular fractures.

ID: 3522848 UNRECOGNIZED GLOVE PERFORATION DURING COLONOSCOPY: THE INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS.

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure for endoscopic examination of large bowel. Glove is one of the physical barriers against the patient-to-endoscopist transmission of pathogens and vice versa. Intraoperative glove perforation is a well-known incident during surgical procedures. However, there are scarce data on glove perforation in colonoscopy. This study aims to determine the incidence and risk factors of glove perforation during colonoscopy.

Gloves Perforations in Minor Oral Surgical Procedures: A Comparison of Latex and Nitrile Gloves

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare incidence of perforations in Latex and Nitrile examination gloves during Minor Oral surgical procedures performed under local anesthesia. METHODOLOGY: 100 pairs of latex and 100 pairs of Nitrile examination gloves where used to perform 200 minor oral surgical procedures under local anesthesia. After completion of every minor oral surgical procedure each gloves was examined by Water Inflation method to observe presence or absence of Perforations. A data sheet was used to collect data including type of Gloves used (Latex or Nitrile) presence of perforations, sites of perforations and nature of minor oral surgical procedures. Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Descriptive analysis was conducted to calculate frequency and percentages of Number and sites of perforations for both Nitrile and latex examination gloves. Chi Square test was used to find out statistical significance of difference of perforations rate between Nitrile and Latex gloves. P value of &lt; 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Out of 200 latex gloves 23 (11.5) had 29 perforations whereas out of total 200 Nitrile gloves 28 (14%) had 22 perforations. Nitrile gloves had a statistically significant higher rate of perforations as compared to Latex gloves. (P value 0.043). For both Nitrile and Latex gloves left non dominant hand had highest frequency of perforations Latex 18 (81.81%) perforations and Nitrile 18(62.06%). Index finger and thumb were most frequent sites of perforations in both Latex and Nitrile gloves. CONCLUSION: Gloves perforations were more common in Nitrile examination gloves however total number of perforations was more in Latex examination gloves.