ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Surgical glove perforation in caesarean section and its association with surgical site infections: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInfectious complications at the surgical site complicates 1-4% of cesarean deliveries. Strict aseptic technique, hand hygiene and the use of sterile surgical gloves are essential to reduce the risk of surgical site contamination. Glove perforations are observed in almost 30% of all procedures and represent an underestimated potential risk factor for postoperative infections. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate glove perforation rates in cesarean deliveries and to analyze the impact of unrecognized glove perforations during surgery on surgical site infection rates after cesarean delivery.
methodSurgical gloves from cesarean section were collected prospectively. All gloves were inspected for perforation holes. Cases in which surgical gloves had visible (macro) perforations were excluded from the study. Remaining gloves were examined using a water-fill test. Gloves with a positive water filling test were defined as the study group and negative gloves as the control group. Superficial Surgical Site Infections (SSI) were analyzed for the groups.
resultsA total of 1,779 pairs of used surgical gloves were collected and examined for perforations across 593 cesarean operations. Macro perforation were observed in 56 (9.4%) operations. The remaining 1,611 pairs of gloves underwent water-fill testing. Of these, 505 operations had completely intact gloves, while in 32 (5.4%) cases, micro-perforations were identified. SSI occurred in 18 women (3.3%): 7 in the perforation group (21.8%) and 11 in the control group (2.2%) (p < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, glove micro-perforation was found to be a significant independent predictor of SSI (adjusted odds ratio: 12.705; 95% CI: 4.244-38.039; p < 0.001), even after adjusting for potential confounders including diabetes, obesity, emergency cesarean, operative duration, and intraoperative blood loss.
conclusionOur data show that glove perforation is unexpectedly common and underestimated in terms of unfavorable surgical outcomes. The rate of surgical site infections is increasing and we suggest that unrecognized glove perforation must be considered as a risk factor for surgical site infection after cesarean section.
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.