Randomized controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery

Authors

  • Piyaphan Punyatanasakchai,

    1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Apichart Chittacharoen,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Nathpong Israngura Na Ayudhya

    1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Search for more papers by this author

Apichart Chittacharoen, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand. Email: raaco@mahidol.ac.th

Abstract

Objective:  The aims of the study presented here were to compare the rate of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods, and the time of operation and level of surgeon in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery.

Method:  A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from the beginning of May to the end of December, 2002 at Ramathibodi Hospital. A comparison of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods was performed. Glove perforations were tested by filling each glove with water. Glove perforation rate, position of perforation, time of operation and surgeon level of experience were analyzed.

Results:  One hundred and fifty sets of double-gloving method and 150 sets of single-gloving method were evaluated. The glove perforation rates were 4.6 and 18% in double-inner gloves and single-gloves, respectively, with statistical difference (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between glove perforation rates in double-outer gloves (22.6%) and single-gloves (18%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 2% of all double-inner gloves. The frequency of glove perforation was classified by the surgeon's level of experience and time of operation was no difference in each level.

Conclusion:  The double-gloving method significantly reduced the risk of exposure of the surgeon's hand to the patient's blood, when compared with the single-gloving method in episiotomy repair. There were no differences in the rate of glove perforations compared to the time of operation and level of surgeon.

Ancillary