Frequency of undetected glove perforation and associated risk factors in equine surgery

Yvonne Elce, Sheila Laverty, Eduardo Almeida da Silveira, Perrine Piat, Pierre Trencart, Pavlina Ruzickova, Richard Reardon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objective To estimate the frequency of undetected perforations in surgical gloves during equine surgery and to identify risk factors associated with occurrence.
Study Design Observational cohort study.
Sample Population Surgical gloves—292 pairs.
Methods Water leak tests were performed on gloves after equine surgery to detect perforations. Fifty pairs of unused gloves were also tested. Potential risk factors were recorded. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between putative risk factors and perforation.
Results No perforations were detected in the unused gloves. Of 292 pairs of used gloves tested, 80 (27%) had at least one glove perforation per pair. The frequency of perforations was not different between surgery diplomates and residents (P=.69). The length and type of surgery were significantly associated with the likelihood of undetected glove perforation with surgeries longer than 60 minutes approximately 2.5 times more likely to result in glove perforation (P=.005). Surgery classified as soft tissue, orthopedic or exploratory celiotomy was 3 times more likely to result in glove perforation than minimally invasive surgery. The perforations occurred significantly more frequently in the nondominant hand (19%) than the dominant hand (11%) (P=.009).
Conclusion There is a high occurrence of undetected glove perforation in equine surgery. Precautions can be suggested based on this study although further investigation is required to assess whether glove perforations are associated with surgical site infections.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1066-1070
JournalVeterinary Surgery
Issue number8
Early online date29 Sep 2016
Publication statusPublished - 2 Nov 2016


Dive into the research topics of 'Frequency of undetected glove perforation and associated risk factors in equine surgery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this