Scholarlink

Objective <p>Infectious 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.</p> Method <p>Surgical 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.</p> Results <p>A 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%) (<i>p</i> &lt; 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; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), even after adjusting for potential confounders including diabetes, obesity, emergency cesarean, operative duration, and intraoperative blood loss.</p> Conclusion <p>Our 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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Surgical glove perforation in caesarean section and its association with surgical site infections: a prospective cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月12日

查看全文
  • Volkan Özgür Akbulut,
  • Dinçer Sümer,
  • Aziz Kından,
  • Ahmet Kurt,
  • Aykut Kından,
  • Recep Taha Ağaoğlu,
  • Ahmet Arif Filiz,
  • Kubilay Canga,
  • Hatice Ayhan,
  • Ali Turhan Çağlar

摘要

Objective

Infectious 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.

Method

Surgical 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusion

Our 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.