수술용 장갑의 천공률에 대한 연구 (Incidence and Risk Factors for Surgical Glove Perforation)

Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for surgical glove perforation during operation. Methods: During the month of december 2008, a total of 1,400 pairs of surgical gloves used in major operations was collected in a tertiary hospital. All gloves were examined immediately after operation using the standardized water-leak method to detect any perforation. Incidence of the glove perforation was counted according to the type of operation, operation time, the number of involved personnel, perforation sites, and the manufacturing companies. Results: Out of 2,800 gloves examined, 312 perforations were detected comprising 11.1% of samples. In terms of the type of operation, the perforation incidence varied from 5% to 20%, and the perforation rates in CS (20%) and NS (18%) (p<.001) were significantly higher than those in other departments. The 1st assistant or scrub nurse got glove perforation more frequently than the 2nd assistant or operator (p<.001). Longer operation time was associated with higher incidence of perforation evidently (p<.001). In terms of the sites, the thumb and index finger were more frequently perforated than other sites (4.1% and 3.4% respectively) without any differences between left and right side. Conclusion: Risk factors for glove perforation including the department of operation, operation time, participating personnel, and location of perforation should be taken into account to improve surgical safety.

Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for surgical glove perforation during operation. Methods: During the month of december 2008, a total of 1,400 pairs of surgical gloves used in major operations was collected in a tertiary hospital. All gloves were examined immediately after operation using the standardized water-leak method to detect any perforation. Incidence of the glove perforation was counted according to the type of operation, operation time, the number of involved personnel, perforation sites, and the manufacturing companies. Results: Out of 2,800 gloves examined, 312 perforations were detected comprising 11.1% of samples. In terms of the type of operation, the perforation incidence varied from 5% to 20%, and the perforation rates in CS (20%) and NS (18%) (p<.001) were significantly higher than those in other departments. The 1st assistant or scrub nurse got glove perforation more frequently than the 2nd assistant or operator (p<.001). Longer operation time was associated with higher incidence of perforation evidently (p<.001). In terms of the sites, the thumb and index finger were more frequently perforated than other sites (4.1% and 3.4% respectively) without any differences between left and right side. Conclusion: Risk factors for glove perforation including the department of operation, operation time, participating personnel, and location of perforation should be taken into account to improve surgical safety.