FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Veterinary surgery : VS2021; 50(6); 1250-1256; doi: 10.1111/vsu.13635

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

Abstract: 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. Methods: Prospective randomized ex-vivo study. Methods: Pairs of surgical gloves (n = 46) worn during jejunojejunal anastomoses. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. Conclusions: 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.
© 2021 American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-07-02 PubMed ID: 34213773DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13635Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research tests the resilience of tri-layer nitrile-latex and natural rubber latex gloves to perforations during equine intestinal surgeries. The study found that tri-layer nitrile-latex gloves had fewer cases of perforations compared to the natural rubber latex gloves.

Research Methodology

  • This research used a prospective randomized ex-vivo study design to compare the perforation rates between the two types of gloves.
  • The gloves were worn during single-layer end-to-end jejunojejunal anastomoses, a surgical procedure performed on equine cadavers.
  • A total of 46 pairs of gloves were used, distributed equally between the two types and randomly assigned to a right-handed surgeon.
  • The study determined the number and location of perforations using a water leak test after each procedur
  • As a control measure, ten unused pairs from both glove types were also tested.

Research Findings

  • Perforations occurred in 41% (or 19 out of 46) of the pairs of gloves used during the procedures.
  • The tri-layer gloves had a significantly lower perforation rate at 22% (or 5 out of 23 pairs) compared to 61% (or 14 out of 23 pairs) for the rubber latex gloves.
  • The odds of glove perforation were found to be 5.6 times lower if tri-layer gloves were used instead of rubber latex gloves, a finding which was statistically significant (p = .009).
  • The duration of the surgical procedure was found to have no effect on the risk of glove perforation (p = .679).
  • No perforations were observed in any of the unused control pairs.

Conclusion

  • The research concluded that tri-layer nitrile-latex gloves were less prone to perforations compared to natural rubber latex gloves in the given study setting.
  • Tri-layer nitrile-latex gloves demonstrated superior resistance to perforations in this experimental setting, indicating potential benefits in actual clinical settings as well, although further studies are needed for confirmation.

Cite This Article

APA
Averay K, Ward M, Verwilghen D. (2021). Perforations of tri-layer nitrile-latex and natural rubber latex gloves during ex-vivo equine intestinal anastomoses. Vet Surg, 50(6), 1250-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13635

Publication

Veterinary surgery : VS
ISSN: 1532-950X
NlmUniqueID: 8113214
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 50
Issue: 6
Pages: 1250-1256

Researcher Affiliations

Averay, Kate
  • Camden Equine Centre, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ward, Michael
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Verwilghen, Denis
  • Camden Equine Centre, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

MeSH Terms

  • Anastomosis, Surgical / veterinary
  • Animals
  • Cadaver
  • Gloves, Surgical
  • Horses
  • Latex
  • Nitriles / adverse effects
  • Prospective Studies
  • Random Allocation
  • Rubber

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Lindsay S, Oates A, Bourdillon K. The detrimental impact of extracellular bacterial proteases on wound healing.. Int Wound J 2017;14:1237-1247.
  2. Badia J, Casey A, Petrosillo N. Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries.. J Hosp Infect 2017;96:1-15.
  3. Verwilghen DR, Mainil J, Mastrocicco E. Surgical hand antisepsis in veterinary practice: evaluation of soap scrubs and alcohol based rub techniques.. Vet J 2011;190:372-377.
  4. MacDonald D, Morley P, Bailey J. An examination of the occurrence of surgical wound infection following equine orthopaedic surgery (1981-1990).. Equine Vet J 1994;26:323-326.
  5. Semevolos SA, Ducharme NG, Hackett RP. Clinical assessment and outcome of three techniques for jejunal resection and anastomosis in horses: 59 cases (1989-2000).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:215-218.
  6. Freeman DE, Hammock P, Baker GJ. Short- and long-term survival and prevalence of postoperative ileus after small intestinal surgery in the horse.. Equine Vet J 2000;32:42-51.
  7. Jones RD, Kania SA, Rohrbach BW. Prevalence of oxacillin-and multidrug-resistant staphylococci in clinical samples from dogs: 1,772 samples (2001-2005).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007;230:221-227.
  8. Verwilghen D. Surgical techniques.. Equine Surgery 2019:198-213.
  9. Verwilghen D. Preparation for surgery: decision making/operative risk, patient, facility, operating team.. Equine Surgery 2019:143-183.
  10. Allegranzi B, Bischoff P, Kubilay Z. Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection.. Torino TO, Italy: World Health Organization; 2016.
  11. Eklund AM, Ojajärvi J, Laitinen K. Glove punctures and postoperative skin flora of hands in cardiac surgery.. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:149-153.
  12. Jid LQ, Ping MW, Chung WY. Visible glove perforation in total knee arthroplasty: risk and consequences.. J Orthop Surg 2017;25:2309499017695610.
    doi: 10.1177/2309499017695610google scholar: lookup
  13. Biermann NM, McClure J, Sanchez J. Observational study on the occurrence of surgical glove perforation and associated risk factors in large animal surgery.. Vet Surg 2018;47:212-218.
  14. Elce YA, Laverty S, Almeida da Silveira E. Frequency of undetected glove perforation and associated risk factors in equine surgery.. Vet Surg 2016;45:1066-1070.
  15. Hübner N-O, Goerdt A-M, Stanislawski N. Bacterial migration through punctured surgical gloves under real surgical conditions.. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:192.
  16. Misteli H, Weber WP, Reck S. Surgical glove perforation and the risk of surgical site infection.. Arch Surg 2009;144:553-558.
  17. Hayes GM, Reynolds D, Moens NM. Investigation of incidence and risk factors for surgical glove perforation in small animal surgery.. Vet Surg 2014;43:400-404.
  18. Bardorf MH, Jäger B, Boeckmans E. Influence of material properties on gloves' bacterial barrier efficacy in the presence of microperforation.. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:1645-1649.
  19. Jackson EM, Williams FM, Neal JG. Biomechanical performance of examination gloves.. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;48:572-577.
  20. Patel H, Fleming G, Burke F. Puncture resistance and stiffness of nitrile and latex dental examination gloves.. Br Dent J 2004;196:695-700.
  21. Korniewicz DM, El-Masri MM, Broyles JM. A laboratory-based study to assess the performance of surgical gloves.. AORN J 2003;77:772-779.
  22. Aldlyami E, Kulkarni A, Reed MR. Latex-free gloves: safer for whom?. J Arthroplasty 2010;25:27-30.
  23. Mylon P, Lewis R, Carré MJ. A study of clinicians' views on medical gloves and their effect on manual performance.. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:48-54.
  24. HaCU Ltd. Cardinal Health Protexis Latex Sterile Powder Free Surgical Gloves.. www.safetygloves.co.uk, 2020.
  25. Health™ C. Cardinal Health™ PROTEXIS™ Surgical Gloves, in Health™ C (ed). 2019.
  26. Orengo I, Pielop J, Ransdell BL. The use of a “no-touch” technique to reduce the incidence of glove perforation during suture needle adjustment.. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:1215-1216.
  27. ASTM Designation. D 5151 19 standard test method for detection of holes in medical gloves.. Annual Book of ASTM Standards American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA; 2015.
    doi: 10.1520/d5151-19google scholar: lookup
  28. Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied Logistic Regression.. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
  29. Cardinal Health. Protexis™ Latex.. Cardinal Health 2019.
  30. Medline Industries. Signature Latex Essential Surgical Gloves.. 2019.
  31. Yeh Y-ST, Zhu D. Powder-free nitrile-coated gloves with an intermediate rubber-nitrile layer between the glove and the coating and method of making same.. Vol Google Patents, 2002.
  32. Al-Maiyah M, Bajwa A, Finn P. Glove perforation and contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty.. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:556-559.
  33. Goldman AH, Haug E, Owen JR. High risk of surgical glove perforation from surgical rotatory instruments.. Clin Orthop 2016;474:2513-2517.
  34. Burrow R, Pinchbeck G. Study of how frequently surgeons' gloves are perforated during operations.. Vet Rec 2006;158:558-561.
  35. Wright K, Moran C, Briggs P. Glove perforation during hip arthroplasty. A randomised prospective study of a new taperpoint needle.. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:918-920.
  36. Makama JG, Okeme IM, Makama EJ. Glove perforation rate in surgery: a randomized, controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of double gloving.. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2016;17:436-442.
  37. Palmer J, Rickett J. The mechanisms and risks of surgical glove perforation.. J Hosp Infect 1992;22:279-286.
  38. Tanner J. Surgical gloves: perforation and protection.. J Perioper Pract 2006;16:148-152.
  39. Seki S. Suturing techniques of individual surgeons: differences in accuracy and mechanics.. Jpn J Surg 1989;19:424-431.
  40. Meakin LB, Gilman OP, Parsons KJ. Colored indicator undergloves increase the detection of glove perforations by surgeons during small animal orthopedic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.. Vet Surg 2016;45:709-714.
  41. Character BJ, McLaughlin RM, Hedlund CS. Postoperative integrity of veterinary surgical gloves.. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:311-320.
  42. Tlili MA, Belgacem A, Sridi H. Evaluation of surgical glove integrity and factors associated with glove defect.. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:30-33.
  43. Sornsanee P, Jitprarop V, Tangboriboon N. Preparation polyisoprene (NR) and polyacrylonitrile rubber latex glove films by dipping ceramic hand molds process and their properties.. Proc Defect Diffusion Forum 2018;382:21-25.
  44. Drabek T, Boucek CD, Buffington CW. Wearing the wrong size latex surgical gloves impairs manual dexterity.. J Occup Environ Hyg 2010;7:152-155.
  45. Mischke C, Verbeek JH, Saarto A. Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;3:CD009573.
    doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd009573.pub2google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,151 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.