Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Blunt Tapered and Standard Needles in Closing Abdominal Fascia
ABSTRACT Glove perforation frequently occurs during the course of surgical procedures, introducing risks for both surgeons and patients. The aim of this study was to compare the use of blunt tapered and “sharp” needles during abdominal wall closure with respect to the incidence of glove perforation and the convenience of needle handling. A series of 200 patients undergoing laparotomy in a 6-month period for general surgical disorders were randomized to two groups; in one, the abdominal fascia was closed with a blunt tapered needle; in the other, a sharp needle was used. The main outcome measures were glove perforation and convenience of handling the needle. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. In all, 56 glove perforations occurred during 40 (20%) surgical procedures.Perforation rates differed significantly: 12% for the blunt (n = 100) tapered needle and 28% (n = 100) for the sharp needle (p = 0.003). Only in 12 cases (21%) was the glove perforation detected at surgery. The type of needle (odds ratio 0.35, p = 0.006) and time taken to close the fascia (odds ratio 1.001, p = 0.05) significantly affected the risk of glove perforation. At multivariate logistic regression analysis the type of needle (odds ratio 0.23, p = 0.004) and the visual analog linear scale (VAS) for ease of needle handling (odds ratio 1.18, p = 0.019) were important predictive factors for glove perforation. With the blunt tapered needle, the VAS was significantly (p = 0.0003) higher at primary laparotomy than at relaparotomy. Use of the blunt tapered needle reduces the incidence of glove perforation. Laborious closure predicts glove perforation. Blunt tapered needles are less convenient in closing a scarred abdominal fascia.
Article: The use of blunt needles does not reduce glove perforations during obstetrical laceration repair.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of the study was to compare the rate of glove perforation for blunt and sharp needles used during obstetrical laceration repair. A secondary aim was to assess physician satisfaction with blunt needles. This was an institutional review board-approved, randomized, prospective trial. Patients with obstetric lacerations were randomized to repair with either blunt or sharp needles. Patient demographics, operator experience, and other clinical variables were collected. Physicians reported any percutaneous injuries and were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the assigned needles. Glove perforation was determined using a validated water test method. There were 438 patients enrolled in the trial: 221 in the control group and 217 in the study group. There was no statistical difference between groups in patient demographics, clinical variables, severity of laceration, or experience level of the surgeon. There was no difference in the glove perforation rate between blunt and sharp needles (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.95). There was poor correlation between reported perforations and those detected by water test (R(2) = 0.33). The physicians reported that blunt needles were more difficult to use than sharp needles (P = .0001). There was no difference in the rate of surgical glove perforation for blunt, compared with sharp, needles used during vaginal laceration repair. Physicians also reported increased difficulty performing the repair with blunt needles.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 12/2008; 199(6):641.e1-3. · 3.28 Impact Factor
Article: Reducing needle stick injuries in healthcare occupations: an integrative review of the literature.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Needlestick injuries frequently occur among healthcare workers, introducing high risk of bloodborne pathogen infection for surgeons, assistants, and nurses. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of both educational training and safeguard interventions to reduce needlestick injuries. Several databases were searched including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Sciencedirect. Studies were selected if the intervention contained a study group and a control group and were published between 2000 and 2010. Of the fourteen studies reviewed, nine evaluated a double-gloving method, one evaluated the effectiveness of blunt needle, and one evaluated a bloodborne pathogen educational training program. Ten studies reported an overall reduction in glove perforations for the intervention group. In conclusion, this review suggests that both safeguard interventions and educational training programs are effective in reducing the risk of having needlestick injuries. However, more studies using a combination of both safeguards and educational interventions in surgical and nonsurgical settings are needed.ISRN nursing. 01/2011; 2011:315432.