[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.108.121. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Correspondence
February 2010

Blunt Needles for Patients’ and Surgeons’ Safety

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Emergency Department, Division of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University (Drs Mingoli, Brachini, Binda, Sapienza, and Modini); and Department of Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Giovanni Addolorata (Dr Sgarzini), Rome, Italy.

Arch Surg. 2010;145(2):210-211. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2009.283

We read with great interest the article by Misteli and colleagues1 about the increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI) when surgical glove perforation occurs. Correlation between SSI and glove perforation was explored in 4147 procedures. The incidence of SSI was significantly higher in procedures with glove perforation and no antimicrobial prophylaxis (7.5%) than in procedures without glove perforation (3.9%). The authors concluded that glove perforation should be considered a risk factor for SSI in the absence of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, and therefore the latter should be extended to all clean procedures when glove perforations are not prevented by double gloving or glove changing.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×