Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 265–267 | Cite as

Use of double gloves to protect the surgeon from blood contact during aesthetic procedures

  • Richard J. Greco
  • Jaime R. Garza
Article

Abstract

The potential for blood contact with nonintact skin puts operating room personnel at an increased risk of exposure to hepatitis or HIV virus. Frank needle-stick injury to the surgeon has been shown to occur once every 20–40 operations. It has been shown that blood contact exposure during aesthetic surgery occurs in 32% of the operations in which a single pair of surgical gloves is used (surgeon 39.7%, assistant 23%). The reduction of blood contact exposure during aesthetic surgical procedures by using two pairs of gloves was tested and demonstrated. Contact rates decreased by 70%. Outer-glove perforations occurred in 25.6% of the cases, while inner-glove perforations occurred in only 10% of the cases (surgeon 8.7%, assistant 3.5%). All of the inner-glove perforations occurred during procedures that lasted longer than two hours, and in no case was there an inner-glove defect without a corresponding outer-glove perforation. The nondominant index forger (33%) was the most common location. Double gloving during aesthetic procedures reduced the operating room personnel's risk of blood contact exposure by 70% when compared with single-glove use.

Key words

Aesthetic surgery Gloves Occupational exposure Blood 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cole RP, Gault DT: Glove perforation during plastic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 42(4):481–483, 1989Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dodds RD, Guy PJ, Peacock AM: Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg 75:966–968, 1988Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gani JS, Anseline PF, Bissett RL: Efficacy of double versus single gloving in protecting the operating team. Austral NZ J Surg 60:171–175, 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Godin MS, Laverina CJ, Harris JP: Occult surgical glove perforation in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:910–913, 1991Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greco RJ, Wheatley M, McKenna P: Risk of blood contact through gloves in aesthetic procedures. Aesth Plast Surg 17(2):167–168, 1993Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maffulli N, Testa V, Capasso G: Glove perforation in elective orthopaedic surgery. Acta Orthoped Scand 60:0565–566, 1989Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maffulli N, Testa V, Capasso G: Glove perforation in hand surgery. J Hand Surg 16A (6):1034–1037, 1991Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCue SF, Berg EW, Saunders EA: Efficacy of double gloving as a barrier to microbial contamination during total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 63A:811–813, 1981Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quebbeman EJ, Telford GL, et al: Double gloving: protection from blood contamination in the operating room. Arch Surg 127(2):213–216, 1992Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiff SJ: A surgeon's risk of AIDS. J Neurosurg 73(5):651–660, 1990Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Greco
    • 1
  • Jaime R. Garza
    • 1
  1. 1.PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations