Postprocedural infection rate after minor surgical procedures performed with and without sterile gloves: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Postprocedural infection has been a top priority for the perioperative team. The use of sterile gloves to counter this became popular and was routinely used, but randomized studies have shown that the benefit that was thought to be added by the use of sterile gloves is insignificant and that not all procedures require the use of sterile gloves.

METHODS

Prospective protocol registration was and electronic databases were searched without using any search filters. Screening was performed by independent reviewers, and data was extracted from selected studies. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 test, and the effect model was chosen accordingly. The odds ratio was used as an effect measure as the variables in this study were dichotomous. Forest plots and funnel plots were used to give visual feedback.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 14 comparative studies that involved a total of 12,625 patients. Analysis of postprocedural infection outcome showed no significant difference between the procedure performed using sterile gloves and without using sterile gloves (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.71-1.10; n =12,625; I2 =0%; P -value=0.26). Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis for randomized studies only, surgical site infection, and patients that did not receive prophylactic antibiotics showed no variations. The use of sterile gloves did not show any extra benefit for controlling infection during wound repair, excision and suturing, cystoscopy, and urinary catheterization.

CONCLUSION

The use of sterile gloves does not have any extra benefit for preventing infections when minor surgical procedures are performed.