SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Education and training for preventing sharps injuries and splash exposures in healthcare workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Evidence-based occupational health and safety interventions: a comprehensive overview of reviews.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Analyzing the occupational exposure risks of dental healthcare workers from the perspective of repeated occupational exposure.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Prevalence, response and associated factors of needlestick injury among health care workers in Orotta National Referral Hospital, Eritrea.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Study on needle stick injuries during surgery and blunt needle use for reducing occupational exposure and hygiene benefits.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
- Characteristics of needlestick and sharps injuries of the hands in the operating room among orthopedic surgeons in Japan.Industrial health · 2023Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of Non-Sharps-Related Injuries in a Dental School.International dental journal · 2022Article
- Factors associated with needlestick injuries among healthcare workers: implications for prevention.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Practice and attitudes regarding double gloving among staff surgeons and surgical trainees.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2018Observational
- Head and Neck Lymphomas in HIV Patients: a Clinical Perspective.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2017Review
- Sharp injuries in Japanese operating theaters of HIV/AIDS referral hospitals 2009-2011.Industrial health · 2016Article
- Evidence-Based Cesarean Delivery for the Nonobstetrician.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Review
- Use of safety scalpels and other safety practices to reduce sharps injury in the operating room: what is the evidence?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2013Review
- Prevention of Occupational Diseases: Implementing the Evidence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Sharps injuries: the risks and relevance to plastic surgeons.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2013Article
- Blood and body fluid exposures in health-care settings: risk reduction practices and postexposure prophylaxis for health-care workers.Current infectious disease reports · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons and their assistants are especially at risk of exposure to blood due to glove perforations and needle stick injuries during operations. The use of blunt needles can reduce this risk because they don't penetrate skin easily but still perform sufficiently in other tissues.
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of blunt needles compared to sharp needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among surgical staff. SEARCH
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (until May 2011), CENTRAL, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, PsycINFO, and LILACS (until September 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing needle stick injuries among surgical staff measured as glove perforations or self-reported needle stick injuries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias in trials and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed-effect model meta-analysis. MAIN
resultsWe located 10 RCTs involving 2961 participating surgeons performing an operation in which the use of blunt needles was compared to the use of sharp needles. Four studies focused on abdominal closure, two on caesarean section, two on vaginal repair and two on hip replacement. On average, a surgeon that used sharp needles sustained one glove perforation in three operations. The use of blunt needles reduced the risk of glove perforations with a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.54) compared to sharp needles. The use of blunt needles will thus prevent one glove perforation in every six operations.In four studies, the use of blunt needles reduced the number of self-reported needle stick injuries with a RR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.68). Because the force needed for the blunt needles is higher, their use was rated as more difficult but still acceptable in five out of six studies.The quality of the evidence was rated as high. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is high quality evidence that the use of blunt needles appreciably reduces the risk of exposure to blood and bodily fluids for surgeons and their assistants over a range of operations. It is unlikely that future research will change this conclusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.