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


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 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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