Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22071864›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff.

Annika Parantainen, Jos H Verbeek, Marie-Claude Lavoie, Manisha Pahwa

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  13. Practice and attitudes regarding double gloving among staff surgeons and surgical trainees.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2018
    Observational
  14. Head and Neck Lymphomas in HIV Patients: a Clinical Perspective.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Evidence-Based Cesarean Delivery for the Nonobstetrician.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2016
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Prevention of Occupational Diseases: Implementing the Evidence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Article
  19. Sharps injuries: the risks and relevance to plastic surgeons.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Annika ParantainenHealth Care and Social Services, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Turku, Finland. annika.parantainen@ttl.fi
Jos H Verbeek
Marie-Claude Lavoie
Manisha Pahwa
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health · FIUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeedlesEquipment DesignGeneral SurgeryGloves, SurgicalHumansNeedlestick InjuriesOccupational ExposureOperating RoomsSuture Techniques

Identifiers

PMID22071864
PMCPMC7387125
OpenAlexW1618893876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.