Home  About us  Contact
 

Glove Perforations (glove + perforation)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies

BJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 3 2009
A Khan
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Author response to: Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies

BJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 3 2009
AP Manjunath
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies

BJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 8 2008
AP Manjunath
Objective, To audit glove perforations at laparotomies for gynaecological cancers. Setting, Gynaecological oncology unit, cancer centre, London. Design, Prospective audit. Sample, Twenty-nine laparotomies for gynaecological cancers over 3 months. Methods, Gloves used during laparotomies for gynaecological cancer were tested for perforations by the air inflation and water immersion technique. Parameters recorded were: type of procedure, localisation of perforation, type of gloves, seniority of surgeon, operation time and awareness of perforations. Main outcome measure, Glove perforation rate. Results, Perforations were found in gloves from 27/29 (93%) laparotomies. The perforation rate was 61/462 (13%) per glove. The perforation rate was three times higher when the duration of surgery was more than 5 hours. The perforation rate was 63% for primary surgeons, 54.5% for first assistant, 4.7% for second assistant and 40.5% for scrub nurses. Clinical fellows were at highest risk of injury (94%). Two-thirds of perforations were on the index finger or thumb. The glove on the nondominant hand had perforations in 54% of cases. In 50% of cases, the participants were not aware of the perforations. There were less inner glove perforations in double gloves compared with single gloves (5/139 versus 26/154; P = 0.0004, OR = 5.4, 95% CI 1.9,16.7). The indicator glove system failed to identify holes in 44% of cases. Conclusions, Glove perforations were found in most (93%) laparotomies for gynaecological malignancies. They are most common among clinical fellows, are often unnoticed and often not detected by the indicator glove system. [source]

Randomised controlled trial of glove perforation in single and double-gloving methods in gynaecologic surgery

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 5 2002
Ekachai Kovavisarach
ABSTRACT Objective To assess the value of double-gloving in gynaecological surgery. Design A prospective randomised controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving methods. Setting Rajavithi Hospital between 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000. Sample Eighty-eight (88) and 82 primary surgeons were selected at random to make up single- and doublegloving groups, respectively, while performing total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Methods The gloves were tested by immersion in water. Results The glove perforation rate was 6.09% and 22.73% in double-inner and single gloves, respectively, with this difference being statistically different (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the glove perforation rates in single gloves (22.73%) and in double-outer gloves (19.51%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 1.22% of total double-inner gloves. Conclusions The double-gloving methods significantly reduced the risk of surgeons' hands contacting blood, when compared with the single-gloving method, in TAH with/or without BSO. [source]

Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies

BJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 8 2008
AP Manjunath
Objective, To audit glove perforations at laparotomies for gynaecological cancers. Setting, Gynaecological oncology unit, cancer centre, London. Design, Prospective audit. Sample, Twenty-nine laparotomies for gynaecological cancers over 3 months. Methods, Gloves used during laparotomies for gynaecological cancer were tested for perforations by the air inflation and water immersion technique. Parameters recorded were: type of procedure, localisation of perforation, type of gloves, seniority of surgeon, operation time and awareness of perforations. Main outcome measure, Glove perforation rate. Results, Perforations were found in gloves from 27/29 (93%) laparotomies. The perforation rate was 61/462 (13%) per glove. The perforation rate was three times higher when the duration of surgery was more than 5 hours. The perforation rate was 63% for primary surgeons, 54.5% for first assistant, 4.7% for second assistant and 40.5% for scrub nurses. Clinical fellows were at highest risk of injury (94%). Two-thirds of perforations were on the index finger or thumb. The glove on the nondominant hand had perforations in 54% of cases. In 50% of cases, the participants were not aware of the perforations. There were less inner glove perforations in double gloves compared with single gloves (5/139 versus 26/154; P = 0.0004, OR = 5.4, 95% CI 1.9,16.7). The indicator glove system failed to identify holes in 44% of cases. Conclusions, Glove perforations were found in most (93%) laparotomies for gynaecological malignancies. They are most common among clinical fellows, are often unnoticed and often not detected by the indicator glove system. [source]