Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/29740
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBoekel, Pamela-
dc.contributor.authorEk, Eugene T-
dc.date2022-
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-12T04:27:26Z-
dc.date.available2022-04-12T04:27:26Z-
dc.date.issued2022-03-22-
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in surgery 2022; 9:839040en
dc.identifier.issn2296-875X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/29740-
dc.description.abstractSterility of the operative field during surgery is imperative in reducing the risk of infection. Most commonly, double gloves are worn by surgeons. When contamination occurs, the top gloves are changed intra-operatively. No studies have investigated which glove changing technique is best. Therefore, in this study, we aim to identify which top glove changing technique causes the least surface contamination. Glitterbug™ (UV fluorescent powder) was applied to the top gloves of 3 individuals who changed their top gloves according to a randomised method - Method 1: 3 pairs worn, remove the outer pair; Method 2: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, replace unassisted; and Method 3: 2 pairs worn, remove the top glove, and replace assisted by a scrub nurse. A blinded investigator inspected for Glitterbug™ contamination under UV light. Two hundred and ten trials were performed and two types of contamination were identified, namely, direct contact and airborne spread. For absolute contamination, Method 1 had 59/64 (92%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 49/65 (75%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 64/81 (79%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant (p = 0.031). For direct contamination only, Method 1 had 38/64 (59%) contaminated trials, Method 2 had 24/65 (37%) contaminated trials, and Method 3 had 20/81 (25%) contaminated trials. This was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Method 2 had a statistically significant lower contamination rate overall, with Method 3 having the lowest direct contamination rate. We believe that wearing 2 gloves, removing the top glove and replacing it, either assisted or unassisted, could decrease surface contamination of the sterile field.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectOrthopaedic Surgeryen
dc.subjecthealthcare-associated infectionen
dc.subjectinfection preventionen
dc.subjectpersonal protective equipmenten
dc.subjectsterile fielden
dc.subjectsurgeryen
dc.subjectsurgical site infectionen
dc.titleContamination Associated With Glove Changing Techniques in the Operating Theatre.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleFrontiers in surgeryen
dc.identifier.affiliationOrthopaedic Surgeryen
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne Orthopaedic Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia..en
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35392064/en
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fsurg.2022.839040en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2979-4900en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3779-3545en
dc.identifier.pubmedid35392064-
local.name.researcherEk, Eugene T
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptOrthopaedic Surgery-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

36
checked on Feb 4, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.