Influence of orthopedic reinforced gloves versus double standard gloves on contamination events during small animal orthopedic surgery.

ObjectiveTo determine the influence of orthopedic reinforced gloves on contamination events during small animal orthopedic surgery. Study designProspective randomized controlled trial Sample populationTwo hundred and thirty-seven pairs of orthopedic gloves (474 gloves) and 203 pairs of double standard gloves (812 gloves) worn during 193 orthopedic procedures. MethodsPrimary and assistant surgeons were randomized to wear either orthopedic reinforced gloves or double gloves. Gloves were leak tested to identify perforations at the end of procedures. Perforations detected intraoperatively or postoperatively were recorded. A contamination event was defined as at least one perforation on either hand for orthopedic reinforced gloves, or a perforation of both the inner and outer glove on the same hand for double gloves. ResultsBaseline characteristics between the 2 intervention groups were similar. There was no difference in contamination events between the double-gloved and orthopedic gloved groups (OR=0.95, 95% CI=0.49-1.87, P=.89). The same percentage of contamination events (8% glove pairs used) occurred in the double gloved group (17 contamination events) and in the orthopedic gloved group (19 contamination events). The odds of a contamination event increased by 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.03, P<.001) with each additional minute of surgery. ConclusionOrthopedic reinforced gloves and double standard gloving were equally effective at preventing contamination events in small animal orthopedic procedures. Clinical relevanceSurgeons reluctant to double glove due to perceptions of decreased dexterity and discomfort may safely opt for wearing orthopedic gloves, which may improve their compliance.