I can't find an article, not sure if it exists... Help?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hey everyone, I know it’s been a while since I’ve posted, but I’ve been looking for an article/manuscript (whatever, peer reviewed and legit) for a while now (like months, every now and again I research for it) but have been unable to find it.

Basically, I’ve heard by several people, that there is an article (probably from Europe) that shows no increased complication/infection rate when doing surgery WITHOUT sterile gloves. Supposedly, these people also claim that not wearing gloves is SOP in some European countries (even human surgeries).

I’ve looked, but havn’t found it. Maybe it doesn’t exist. Maybe I suck at google’ing.
Anyone know anything about this? Ever seen the article(s)? Know anyone who does (sterile) surgeries without gloves?

I am just curious… I’ve been having some debates lately about the limitations of ‘evidence based medicine’ vs. common sense (take a look at the ridiculous paper published this year in JAVMA concerning GDV’s and you will get my drift).

Thanks for reading. Big thanks if you find anything

PS: If you find a paper that compares gloves vs. gloveless and the sterile gloves wins over – that works as well, I am just trying to get to the bottom of this (so I can concentration on the NAVLE).

I haven't searched for or seen a paper, but I have worked with an avian vet who used the standard boxed gloves like you would use in anatomy instead of sterile gloves. She believed that her surgery room was "contaminated" anyway so by the time she would have opened the sterile gloves, they'd be no better than the ones she did use. She may have quoted an article as well, but honestly I don't remember.

I have also seen a small animal vet perform surgeries (spays, neuters, amputation) gloveless. This one made me cringe more than the other one but maybe that's my general paranoia of getting/spreading things. At least non-sterile exam gloves provide a layer of protection for both the vet and the animal. He was not a vet who was apt to discuss anything (I think he only said 5 sentences to me the whole time I was there... for two weeks) so I never really asked why he did things the way he did.

If you do end up finding the article, let us know! And good luck studying for the NAVLE!

I found two articles that compared sterile to non-sterile gloves. One was for removal of cutaneous masses on humans (no difference in infection rate) and another was for uncomplicated laceration repairs in emergency rooms (again no difference). I didn't find anything veterinary specific though.

All of the vets that I have seen use sterile gloves for surgical procedures.

Thanks for the update... and an interesting find.

To be clear, I am looking for bare hands (not non-sterile gloves), and intra-abdominal surgeries (neuters, spays, ect.)

On a side note; on VIN I found a bunch of comments about using gloves to protect the VET..? Unless your doing a pyo or septic abdomen; I really can't think of any blood borne diseases we (humans) can get from blood (Lepto from urine was all I could come up with). (Derailing my own threat)

MRSA. Florida swamp cancer. Lots of nasty fungi. Brucella. TB. Some other weird things I've forgotten.
Trust me- do one fetototomy or debride one necrotic wound or lance and flush one abscess only to find two hours later you have pain and red streaks running up your arm, swollen lymph nodes in your armpit and a fever of 102 that doesn't go away for two weeks no matter what antibiotic they put you on and you will wear gloves every time after that.

Oh, yeah and the other reason is that the journal will reject your photo for publication if you aren't wearing gloves, no matter how cool a case or lesion it is- then they'll reject your article because it doesn't have a picture. Sad but true.

nothing that extreme that I could find:
This was the closest.. analysis of biliary tract surgery found no infections from perforated gloves or infected gowns:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1678765

sterile gloves not necessary for minor surgery
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21466721

a specific surgery where non sterile gloves was better
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457390

The ES article mentioned by skittles
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14985664

honestly there seems to be more concern with the surgeons being infected than the patient.

Lots of concern about the gloves themselves causing contamination (especially if powdered)