Article

Randomized controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research (Impact Factor: 0.93). 10/2004; 30(5):354-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00208.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aims of the study presented here were to compare the rate of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods, and the time of operation and level of surgeon in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery.
A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from the beginning of May to the end of December, 2002 at Ramathibodi Hospital. A comparison of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods was performed. Glove perforations were tested by filling each glove with water. Glove perforation rate, position of perforation, time of operation and surgeon level of experience were analyzed.
One hundred and fifty sets of double-gloving method and 150 sets of single-gloving method were evaluated. The glove perforation rates were 4.6 and 18% in double-inner gloves and single-gloves, respectively, with statistical difference (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between glove perforation rates in double-outer gloves (22.6%) and single-gloves (18%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 2% of all double-inner gloves. The frequency of glove perforation was classified by the surgeon's level of experience and time of operation was no difference in each level.
The double-gloving method significantly reduced the risk of exposure of the surgeon's hand to the patient's blood, when compared with the single-gloving method in episiotomy repair. There were no differences in the rate of glove perforations compared to the time of operation and level of surgeon.

0 Followers
 · 
90 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the end of the 19th century, surgeons have used gloves to prevent infectious complications to the patient. The AIDS epidemic of the 1980's sparked the use of universal precautions to protect the surgeon from infection and vice-versa. The interface between surgeon and patient is in effect a two-way street. Surgical techniques must be modified and barrier protection optimized to minimize these risks. A single layer glove is a fragile barrier to blood exposure; unrecognized glove perforations may lead to unrecognized and prolonged exposure. Double gloving, though far from being a widespread practice in France, seems to be the best protection from pathogen exposure. Glove powder and latex allergies have their own inherent risks to both surgeon and patient in the form of latex allergies and adhesive peritonitis. New institutional protocols will be necesssary in order to make powder-free non-latex gloves available to French surgeons.
    Journal de Chirurgie 01/2005; 142(4):226-30. · 0.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the end of the 19th century, surgeons have used gloves to prevent infectious complications to the patient. The AIDS epidemic of the 1980's sparked the use of universal precautions to protect the surgeon from infection and vice-versa. The interface between surgeon and patient is in effect a two-way street. Surgical techniques must be modified and barrier protection optimized to minimize these risks. A single layer glove is a fragile barrier to blood exposure ; unrecognized glove perforations may lead to unrecognized and prolonged exposure. Double gloving, though far from being a widespread practice in France, seems to be the best protection from pathogen exposure. Glove powder and latex allergies have their own inherent risks to both surgeon and patient in the form of latex allergies and adhesive peritonitis. New institutional protocols will be necesssary in order to make powder-free non-latex gloves available to French surgeons.
    Journal de Chirurgie 07/2005; 142(4-142):226-230. DOI:10.1016/S0021-7697(05)80908-1 · 0.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To describe the different types of episiotomy and to define the methods of repair. Methods A systematic review on Medline and Cochrane Database between 1980 and August 2005 was performed. Results Aseptic prevention and specific material may be used in order to reduce the risk of surgical wound infection (grade C). Episiotomy and perineal repair may be associated with considerable pain. In contrast, there has been little evaluation of the effectiveness of analgesia provided to women undergoing this procedure. The mediolateral episiotomy is a 6 cm incision at a 45° angle from the inferior portion of the hymeneal ring (professional agreement). However, shorter length and lower angled episiotomies are also currently reported for routine practice (grade C). There are no data to recommend preferential use of an absorbable synthetic material (acid polyglycolic versus polyglactin 910). The use for the more rapid polylactin 910 suture material was associated with less need to remove sutures but with more wound gapping in comparison with the standard polyglactin 910 material (grade A). The continuous subcuticular technique of perineal repair may be associated with less pain in the immediate postpartum period than the interrupted technique (grade A). Conclusion Mediolateral episiotomy is the method of choice in France. However, the procedure for this technique should be studied more. Subcuticular technique with an absorbable synthetic material may be the optimal method of repair.
    Fuel and Energy Abstracts 02/2006; 35:40-51. DOI:10.1016/S0368-2315(06)76497-3