作者: Christina Mischke , Jos H Verbeek , Annika Saarto , Marie-Claude Lavoie , Manisha Pahwa
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009573.PUB2
关键词: Surgery 、 Percutaneous 、 Medicine 、 Visual analogue scale 、 Double gloving 、 Occupational group 、 Rate ratio 、 Perforation (oil well) 、 Infected patient 、 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
摘要: Background Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood body fluids work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin their hand with sharp implement that has been used in treatment an infected patient, thus bringing patient's into contact own. Such occurrences commonly known percutaneous incidents. Objectives To determine benefits harms extra gloves for preventing incidents among versus no intervention or alternative interventions. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO LILACS until 26 June 2013. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) majority participants, special types intervention, bodily outcome. Data collection analysis Two authors independently assessed study eligibility bias, extracted data. We performed meta-analyses seven different comparisons. Main results We found 34 RCTs included 6890 person-operations participating units reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. grouped interventions follows: increased layers standard gloves, manufactured protective materials thicker puncture indicator systems. Indicator show coloured spot they perforated. Participants were surgeons all studies least one pair control intervention. Twenty-seven also other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but perforations indication exposure. The median rate was 18.5 per 100 person-operations. Seven stains two self needlestick injuries. Six dexterity visual analogue scale scores comparison double single 13 outer glove perforations. judged have moderate high bias. We moderate-quality evidence compared reduce perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 0.37) (RR 0.35, CI 0.17 0.70). Two bias effect injuries 0.58, 0.21 1.62). We low-quality small use three reduces further 0.03, 0.00 0.52). There similar fabric over normal 0.24, 0.06 0.93). this material between gloves. Thicker did not perform better than thinner gloves. There system does total number during operation even though it used. There indicating there is loss 1.10, 0.93 1.31). Authors' conclusions There gloving surgery skin, decrease incidents. triple can preventive need research. Further needed evaluate effectiveness cost-effectiveness occupational groups.