ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2025
Higher rate of undetected intraoperative damage of latex-free surgical gloves worn by scrub nurses.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical gloves are a medical product and a cornerstone of prevention from surgical site infections and staff injury. This study aimed to investigate the integrity of surgical gloves worn by scrub nurses during selected procedures in both general and trauma surgery. The frequency of defects such as perforations or tears was identified. Furthermore, differences in durability between latex and latex-free gloves were analyzed.
methodsIn a 3-month period, a total of 139 surgical glove pairs, both latex and latex-free, used during general or trauma surgery in an academic teaching hospital were collected immediately after procedures. The gloves were subjected to watertightness testing following European norm ISO EN 455:2022 standards. Only gloves visually presumed to be intact were tested for any concealed perforations.
resultsThe number of perforated glove pairs was similar in both departments (general surgery 25% (n = 14 of 57) vs. trauma surgery 28% (n = 23 of 82), p = 0.79). However, differences in perforation rates by glove models (latex vs. latex-free) were noticed. The likelihood of perforation was increased by a factor of 4.24 with the use of latex-free gloves (χ^2 = 8.48, p = 0.004).
conclusionsPerforation of surgical gloves worn by scrub nurses is a common event during various surgical procedures in general and trauma surgery. In several cases, members of the surgical team do not notice a perforation of a glove. The risk of undetected damage to a surgical glove is significantly higher when latex-free gloves are used. Further research is needed to investigate if the use of a second layer of gloves could reduce this perioperative risk for surgical staff and patients.
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.