ArticleMedicine2018
A cross-sectional study of surgical glove perforation during the posterior lumbar interbody spinal fusion surgery: Its frequency, location, and risk factors.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Surgical Glove Perforation in Orthopedic Surgery at Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital: An Observational Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Observational
- Association Between the Frequency of Glove Change and the Risk of Blood and Body Fluid Exposure in Gastrointestinal Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lumbar fusion surgery was known to pose a greater risk of surgical glove perforation. However, there has been no study on the glove perforation that can transmit the blood-borne disease to the patient and surgical staff members in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIFs).We performed a cross-sectional study to investigate the glove perforation during the PLIFs. The study included 37 consecutive patients (10 males and 27 females). All used gloves of surgical staff members, which included the surgeon, assistant surgeons, bone trimmer (who performed local bone trimming and interbody cage preparation), and scrub nurse were collected and were performed to the pinhole water infusion test. The characteristics (i.e., frequency and location of perforated glove) and relative risk of glove perforation were investigated for each participant. The independent risk factors influencing glove perforation were analyzed by multiple logistic regression analysis.The overall operative perforation rate which is a percentage of detected more than one glove perforated event in all cases was 51.4%. The overall glove perforation rate which is the percentage of perforated gloves in all gloves used for surgery was 3.8%. The relative risk of glove perforation by each participant was 2.38 in the surgeon (P = .002), 1.36 in the bone trimmer (P = .04), 1.36 in the scrub nurse (P = .04), and 1.19 in assistant surgeons (P = .13). And, the volume of trimmed local bone was analyzed as an independent risk factor for glove perforation (ORs = 1.310, P = .02).The overall operative perforation rate in PLIFs is higher than 50%. The surgeon, scrub nurse and bone trimmer were observed as a significant risk factor for glove perforation. And, the volume of trimmed local bone was analyzed as independent risk factor. Since the preparation of the interbody cage is essential for successful lumbar fusion surgery, the bone trimmer must pay attention to the glove perforation during this procedure.
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.