Suppr超能文献

不同手术手套和高强度缝线在关节镜结打结扎时的穿孔风险。

Risk of glove perforation with arthroscopic knot tying using different surgical gloves and high-tensile strength sutures.

机构信息

Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2013 Sep;29(9):1552-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.05.022. Epub 2013 Jul 19.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To examine the risk of glove tears associated with arthroscopic knot tying using 4 commonly used high-tensile strength sutures and 2 different types of gloves.

METHODS

We analyzed 2 different surgical latex glove types (0.24-mm-thick powder-free and 0.32-mm-thick powdered) for perforation after arthroscopic knot tying with 4 different high-tensile strength sutures: Hi-Fi (ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL), Ultrabraid (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN), FiberWire (Arthrex, Naples, FL), and Orthocord (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA). All knots were tied by a double-gloved single surgeon. Twelve trials of 4 knots each were performed for every glove-suture combination. All gloves were analyzed for perforation by a blinded evaluator using visual inspection, hydro-insufflation, and electroconductivity.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of glove perforation was 3.4% and was detectable only by the electroconductivity method; the other 2 methods did not detect any perforations. There was a statistically significantly higher rate (P < .001) of perforations in the 0.32-mm powdered gloves (6.8%) compared with the 0.24-mm powder-free gloves (0%). Perforation of the inner glove occurred 5.7 times more frequently than perforation of the outer glove. However, simultaneous perforation of both the inner and outer gloves did not occur in any set. The Hi-Fi suture was involved in 6 perforations compared with 4 for FiberWire, 3 for Ultrabraid, and 0 for Orthocord.

CONCLUSIONS

Double gloving provides an adequate surgical barrier between the surgeon and the patient during arthroscopic knot tying with high-tensile strength sutures as indicated by the low incidence of glove perforations in our study in an in vitro biomechanical evaluation. There were no instances of simultaneous perforation of both the inner and outer gloves. All perforations occurred only in the thicker (0.32-mm) powdered gloves.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Glove tears and finger lacerations have been reported with the use of high-tensile strength sutures during arthroscopic shoulder surgery, thereby raising a concern for safety and disease transmission. This study addresses these concerns by evaluating the risk of glove tears during arthroscopic knot tying.

摘要

目的

使用 4 种常用高强度缝线和 2 种不同类型的手套,研究关节镜结打结扎相关的手套撕裂风险。

方法

我们分析了 2 种不同的手术乳胶手套类型(0.24 毫米厚无粉和 0.32 毫米厚有粉),在使用 4 种不同高强度缝线(Hi-Fi [康美 Linvatec,拉戈,佛罗里达州]、Ultrabraid [史赛克,田纳西州孟菲斯]、FiberWire [关节镜 Arthrex,那不勒斯,佛罗里达州]和 Orthocord [捷迈邦美 DePuy Mitek,雷纳姆,马萨诸塞州])进行关节镜结打结扎后,观察手套穿孔情况。所有结均由一位戴双层手套的外科医生单手完成。对于每一种手套缝线组合,我们进行了 4 个结的 12 次试验。所有手套均由一位盲法评估员通过视觉检查、水充气和导电性进行穿孔分析。

结果

手套穿孔的总发生率为 3.4%,仅用电导率法可检测到;另外 2 种方法均未检测到任何穿孔。0.32 毫米有粉手套的穿孔率(6.8%)明显高于 0.24 毫米无粉手套(0%)(P<.001)。内层手套穿孔的频率是外层手套穿孔的 5.7 倍。然而,在任何一组中均未发生内外层手套同时穿孔的情况。Hi-Fi 缝线有 6 个穿孔,FiberWire 有 4 个,Ultrabraid 有 3 个,Orthocord 有 0 个。

结论

在关节镜高强度缝线结打结扎过程中,双层手套为外科医生和患者之间提供了充分的手术屏障,这一点可以从我们的体外生物力学评估中较低的手套穿孔发生率得到证实。没有同时发生内外层手套穿孔的情况。所有穿孔仅发生在较厚(0.32 毫米)的有粉手套上。

临床相关性

在关节镜肩手术中使用高强度缝线时,已经报道了手套撕裂和手指裂伤的情况,因此引起了对安全性和疾病传播的关注。本研究通过评估关节镜结打结扎过程中手套撕裂的风险,解决了这些担忧。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验