Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wittmann 2009
Wittmann 2009
Gloving •
Author(s): Andreas Wittmann, PhD; Nenad Kralj, MD, MScD; Jan Köver, BA; Klaus Gasthaus,
Dipl Phys; Friedrich Hofmann PhD, MD, MScD
Source: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 30, No. 1 (January 2009), pp. 53-56
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology
of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/593124 .
Accessed: 15/05/2014 14:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
http://www.jstor.org
original article
Andreas Wittmann, PhD; Nenad Kralj, MD, MScD; Jan Köver, BA; Klaus Gasthaus, Dipl Phys;
Friedrich Hofmann PhD, MD, MScD
objective. Needlestick injuries are the most common injuries that occur among operation room personnel in the health care service.
The risk of infection after a needlestick injury during surgery greatly depends on the quantity of pathogenic germs transferred at the point
of injury. The aim of this study was to measure the quantity of blood transferred at the point of a percutaneous injury by using radioactively
labeled blood.
design. This study was conducted to evaluate the risk of infection through blood contact by simulating surgical needlestick injuries ex
vivo. The tests were conducted by puncturing single and double latex gloves with diverse sharp devices and objects that were contaminated
with Technetium solution–labeled blood.
results. A mean volume of 0.064 mL of blood was transferred in punctures with the an automatic lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through
1 layer of latex. When the double-gloving indicator technique was used, a mean volume of only 0.011 mL of blood was transferred (median,
0.007 mL); thus, by wearing 2 pairs of gloves, the transferred volume of blood was reduced by a factor of 5.8.
conclusions. The results revealed that double gloving leads to a significant reduction in the quantity of blood transferred during
needlestick injury.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30:53-56
From the Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal (A.W., N.K., J.K., F.H.), and the Helios Klinikum Wuppertal, Klinik für Nuklearmedizin
(K.G.), Wuppertal, Germany.
Received July 3, 2008; accepted August 3, 2008; electronically published December 2, 2008.
䉷 2008 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 0899-823X/2009/3001-0010$15.00. DOI: 10.1086/593124
can occur with glove punctures that are difficult to detect. In: Hofmann F, Reschauer G, Stößel U. Arbeitsmedizin im Gesundheits-
The aforementioned double-gloving techniques already exist, dienst XII. Freiburg: FFAS; 1999:347-364.
11. Popejoy SL, Fry DE. Blood contact and exposure in the operating room.
and their benefits, compared with single gloving, are known Surg Gynec Obstet 1991; 172:480-483.
in the field of surgery. In conclusion, double gloving should 12. Rieger MA, Hasselhorn HM, Beie M, Kralj N, Vetter HD, Hofmann F.
be recommended for all surgical procedures and should be Personnel-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus: underestimation
required for procedures for patients with known infections of exposure. Arch Int Med 2000; 161:2313-2316.
or for patients who have not yet been tested for infections. 13. Heeg P. Sicherheitsaspekte bei operationshandschuhen. Operat Orthop
Traumatol 1993; 5:291-293.
14. Bennett B, Duff P. The effect of double gloving on frequency of glove
acknowledgments perforations. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78:1019-1022.
Financial support. Regent Medical Overseas, Mölnlycke Healthcare. 15. Bebbington MW, Treissman MJ. The use of a surgical assist device to
Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest reduce glove perforation in post vaginal repair: a randomised control
relevant to this article. trial. Am J Obst Gynecol 1996; 175:862-866.
16. Greco RJ, Garza JR. Use of double gloves to protect the surgeon from
blood contact during aesthetic procedures. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1995; 19:
Address reprint requests to Andreas Wittmann, PhD, University of Wup-
265-267.
pertal, Dept. of Safety Engineering, Gauss Str. 20, D-42097 Wuppertal, Ger-
17. Naver LPS, Gottrup F. Incidence of glove perforations in gastrointestinal
many (andwitt@uni-wuppertal.de).
surgery and the protective effect of double gloves: a prospective, ran-
domised controlled study. Europ J Surg 2003; 166:293-295.
references 18. Cole RP, Gault CT. Glove perforation during plastic surgery. Br J Plast
Surg 1989; 42:481-483.
1. Makary MA, Al-Attar A, Holzmueller ChG, et al. Needlestick injuries 19. Thomas S, Agarwal M, Mehta G. Intraoperative glove perforation—single
among surgeons in training. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:2693-2699. versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination. Postgrad
2. Kralj N, Beie M, Hofmann F. Surgical gloves–how well do the protect Med J 2001; 77:458-60.
against infections? [in German]. Gesundheitswesen 1999; 61:398-403. 20. König M, Bruha M, Hirsch HA. Perforation of surgical gloves in gy-
3. Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. necologic operations and abdominal Cesarean section [In German]. Ge-
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(3):CD003087. burtsh Frauenheilk 1992; 52:109-112.
4. Kralj N. Handschuhe—infektionsschutz für beschäftigte und patienten. 21. Caillot JL, Cote C, Abidi H, Fabry J. Electronic evaluation of the value
In: Hofmann F, Reschauer G, Stößel U. Arbeitsmedizin im Gesundheits- of double gloving. Br J Surg 1999; 86:1387-1390.
dienst XIV. Freiburg: FFAS; 2001:100-105. 22. Fisher MD, Reddy VR, Williams VM, Lin KY, Thacker JG, Redlich RF.
5. Zimmermann CH, Junghanns K. Die verwendung eines neuen perfor- Biomechanical performance of latex and non-latex double-glove systems.
ationsindikatorsystems in der chirurgischen routine. Hyg Med 1996; 21: J Biomed Mater Res 1999; 48:797-806.
486-492. 23. Manson TT, Bromberg WG, Thacker JG, McGregor W, Morgan RF,
6. Eckersley JR, Williamson DM. Glove punctures in an orthopaedic trauma Redlich RF. A new glove puncture detection system. J Emerg Med
unit. Injury 1990; 21:177-178. 1995; 13:357-364.
7. Wright KU, Moran CG, Briggs PJ. Glove perforation during hip arthro- 24. Duron JJ, Keilani K, Elian NG. Efficacy of double gloving with coloured
plasty: a randomised prospective study of a new taperpoint needle. J inner pair for immediate detection of operative glove perforations. Eur
Bone Joint Surg 1993;75:918-920. J Surg 1996; 162:941-944.
8. Hollaus PH, Lax F, Janakiev D, Wurnig PN, Pridu NS. Glove perforation 25. Beie M, Kralj N, Sieker S, Hofmann F. Infektionsschutz im arbeitsleben-
rate in open lung surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 15:461-464. studien zum tastsinn bei einfacher bzw. doppelter behandschuhung. In
9. Eklund AM, Ojajärvi J, Laitinen K, Valtonen M, Werkkala KA. Glove Schäcke G, Lüth P. Dokumentationsband über 40. Jahrestagung der
punctures and postoperative skin flora of hands in cardiac surgery. Ann DGAUM. Rindt Druck: Fulda; 2000:310-312.
Thorac Surg 2002; 74:149-153. 26. Novak CB, Patterson MM, Mackinnon SE. Evaluation of hand sensibility
10. Beie M, Kralj N, Hofmann F. Gefährdungsanalysen in krankenhäusern. with single and double latex gloves. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 1:128-131.