Skip to main content

Surgical Gloving

Surgical gloves are the primary aseptic barrier between the surgical team's hands and the patient's tissues, protecting both parties from microbial transmission and bloodborne-pathogen exposure.[1][2] In reconstructive urology and urogynecology the stakes are specific: cases are often long (raising perforation risk with wear time), many involve prosthetic implantation (AUS, penile prosthesis, mesh) where skin-flora contamination is consequential, and urologic procedures carry a high measured glove-perforation rate.

Glove Materials​

MaterialProfile
Natural rubber latex (NRL)Traditional standard — excellent elasticity, tactile feedback, barrier integrity; risk of IgE-mediated type I hypersensitivity and type IV delayed allergy to rubber accelerators (thiurams, carbamates)[3]
NitrileMost common latex-free option; lowest failure rate among non-latex gloves (1.3% vs 8.2% vinyl/copolymer); barrier protection comparable to or exceeding latex; accelerator-free formulations available[4][5]
Synthetic polyisopreneMimics latex feel and elasticity without NRL proteins; accelerator-free formulations available[5]
Polychloroprene (neoprene)Latex-free with good chemical resistance; accelerator-free versions use zinc-oxide vulcanization[5]
VinylAcceptable only for brief low-risk contact; failure rates far higher than latex/nitrile — not recommended for surgical use[2][4]

The CDC recommends latex or nitrile for procedures requiring manual dexterity or prolonged patient contact.[2]

Powdered Gloves — Banned​

The FDA banned powdered surgical gloves in the United States effective January 2017. Cornstarch glove powder facilitated donning but is associated with:[6]

  • Granulomatous peritonitis and adhesion formation — cornstarch particles incite a foreign-body inflammatory response on peritoneal surfaces, significantly increasing adhesions[7][8]
  • Promotion of wound infection and, in animal models, facilitation of intra-abdominal tumor-cell adhesion[6][7]
  • Latex-allergen carriage — powder adsorbs NRL proteins and aerosolizes them, acting as a vector for latex sensitization[3]

Powder-free gloves with polymer-coated inner linings are the universal standard.

Gloving Techniques​

TechniqueDescription and evidence
Closed-assistedHands stay within the gown sleeves while a circulating member pulls the glove over the cuff; significantly less glove-cuff contamination than open-assisted gloving (p = 0.001) — strongly recommended[9]
Open glovingHands extend through the gown cuffs before gloving, touching only the inside of the glove; used for unassisted regloving during a procedure[10]
Gloves-firstDonning undergloves before the gown; a comparative study showed zero sleeve contamination versus both closed and open techniques[11]

When removing a contaminated glove intraoperatively, a non-sterile team member grasps the outside of the glove ~ 2 inches below the cuff and pulls it off inside-out, without drawing the gown cuff over the hand — the gown cuff is considered contaminated once gloves are donned.[10]

Double Gloving​

Double gloving is standard of care for any procedure involving an incision.[1]

  • A Cochrane review found double gloving reduces inner-glove perforation by 71% (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.23–0.37) and blood stains on the skin by 65% (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17–0.70).[12]
  • No loss of dexterity is demonstrable — outer-glove perforation rates match single-glove rates (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.93–1.31).[12][13]
  • Double gloving is routine in orthopedics and maxillofacial surgery and endorsed by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, AORN, and ACORN.[14]
  • Triple gloving further reduces perforation risk (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00–0.52), though evidence is limited to a single small study.[12]

Indicator glove systems​

A colored underglove worn beneath a standard outer glove: when the outer glove is perforated, fluid seeps between layers and produces a visible colored spot at the breach. Indicator systems significantly improve detection of perforations, particularly in high-risk surgery, but do not reduce the total number of perforations and cannot detect innermost-glove breaches.[1][12][15]

Glove Perforation​

Perforation is common and frequently undetected:

  • Overall perforation rates range 10–63% depending on procedure and methodology; 78–100% of perforations go unnoticed by the team.[16][17]
  • The most common perforation site is the index finger of the non-dominant hand, and surgeons have ~ 5.8× the perforation risk of other team members.[17]
  • One glove-integrity study found 61.7% of perforated gloves came from urologic procedures — a relevant signal for this specialty.[16]

Risk factors:

  • Duration of wear — the strongest predictor; perforation rises sharply after 60–90 minutes, and latex rupture load falls ~ 24% after just 30 minutes of hydration[18]
  • Procedure type — orthopedic, oral/maxillofacial, and obstetric/gynecologic procedures rank highest, attributed to sharp instruments, drills, and saws[15]

Glove Change Frequency​

  • The WSES recommends changing gloves at intervals during surgery, particularly every 90 minutes for surgeons, first assistants, and field-assisting scrub nurses (Grade 2C).[18]
  • Outer gloves are best changed every 60–90 minutes as cumulative perforation rates climb; inner gloves, with a markedly lower perforation rate (5.7% vs 11.6% outer), may be changed roughly every 240 minutes.[19]
  • For prosthetic cases, change gloves after draping and again before handling the implant (AUS, penile prosthesis, mesh) — the arthroplasty literature applies the same principle around implant handling and after bone resection.[20]

Glove and instrument change before wound closure​

The ChEETAh trial (2022), a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial across seven low- and middle-income countries, showed that routine change of gloves and instruments before abdominal wound closure reduced SSI in clean-contaminated, contaminated, and dirty surgery — potentially preventing as many as one in eight SSIs. This practice predated guideline endorsement (WHO 2018, CDC 2017, NICE 2019 had not recommended it for lack of evidence).[21]

Latex Allergy Management​

For patients or staff with confirmed NRL allergy, a latex-safe environment is required:[3][5]

  • Synthetic gloves (nitrile, synthetic polyisoprene, neoprene, polyurethane) for all team members
  • Remove latex-containing devices from the OR
  • Schedule latex-allergic patients as the first case of the day to minimize residual aerosolized allergen
  • For type IV contact allergy to rubber accelerators, substitute accelerator-free gloves (available in polychloroprene, nitrile, and polyisoprene)

Practical Summary​

  • Use latex or nitrile; nitrile is the default latex-free option, with accelerator-free versions for type IV allergy.
  • Double glove for any incisional procedure — large perforation-reduction benefit, no dexterity penalty.
  • Add an indicator underglove in high-risk cases to catch breaches in real time.
  • Change outer gloves every 60–90 minutes, and again before handling a prosthesis.
  • Change gloves (and instruments) before abdominal wound closure — ChEETAh-level evidence for SSI reduction.
  • Maintain a latex-safe OR and first-case scheduling for latex-allergic patients.

See Also​

References​

1. Enz A, Boermeester MA, Chatterjee A, et al. "Hands deserve better: global clinical consensus recommendations on surgical gloving practice." J Hosp Infect. 2026;172:115-128. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2026.03.025

2. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L. "2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings." Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(10 Suppl 2):S65-S164. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2007.10.007

3. Taylor JS, Erkek E. "Latex allergy: diagnosis and management." Dermatol Ther. 2004;17(4):289-301. doi:10.1111/j.1396-0296.2004.04024.x

4. Korniewicz DM, El-Masri M, Broyles JM, Martin CD, O'Connell KP. "Performance of latex and nonlatex medical examination gloves during simulated use." Am J Infect Control. 2002;30(2):133-138. doi:10.1067/mic.2002.119512

5. Crepy MN, Lecuen J, Ratour-Bigot C, Stocks J, Bensefa-Colas L. "Accelerator-free gloves as alternatives in cases of glove allergy in healthcare workers." Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(1):28-32. doi:10.1111/cod.12860

6. Edlich RF, Long WB, Gubler DK, et al. "Dangers of cornstarch powder on medical gloves: seeking a solution." Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63(1):111-115. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181ab43ae

7. van den Tol MP, Haverlag R, van Rossen ME, et al. "Glove powder promotes adhesion formation and facilitates tumour cell adhesion and growth." Br J Surg. 2001;88(9):1258-1263. doi:10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01846.x

8. Dwivedi AJ, Kuwajerwala NK, Silva YJ, Tennenberg SD. "Effects of surgical gloves on postoperative peritoneal adhesions and cytokine expression in a rat model." Am J Surg. 2004;188(5):491-494. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.07.019

9. Jones C, Brooker B, Genon M. "Comparison of open and closed staff-assisted glove donning on the nature of surgical glove cuff contamination." ANZ J Surg. 2010;80(3):174-177. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05211.x

10. Chan D, Downing D, Keough CE, et al. "Joint practice guideline for sterile technique during vascular and interventional radiology procedures." J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(12):1603-1612. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2012.07.017

11. Byrd WA, Kavolus JJ, Penrose CT, Wellman SS. "Donning gloves before surgical gown eliminates sleeve contamination." J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(6):1184-1188. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.015

12. Mischke C, Verbeek JH, Saarto A, et al. "Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD009573. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009573.pub2

13. Zhang Z, Gao X, Ruan X, Zheng B. "Effectiveness of double-gloving method on prevention of surgical glove perforations and blood contamination: a systematic review and meta-analysis." J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(9):3630-3643. doi:10.1111/jan.14824

14. Tanner J, Parkinson H. "Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD003087. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003087.pub2

15. Rippon MG, Rogers AA, Ousey KJ. "Glove breach occurrence during surgical procedures: the benefits of double/indicator system gloves." J Hosp Infect. 2025;161:92-113. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.010

16. Tlili MA, Belgacem A, Sridi H, et al. "Evaluation of surgical glove integrity and factors associated with glove defect." Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(1):30-33. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2017.07.016

17. Sayın S, Yılmaz E, Baydur H. "Rate of glove perforation in open abdominal surgery and the associated risk factors." Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2019;20(4):286-291. doi:10.1089/sur.2018.229

18. De Simone B, Sartelli M, Coccolini F, et al. "Intraoperative surgical site infection control and prevention: a position paper and future addendum to WSES intra-abdominal infections guidelines." World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15(1):10. doi:10.1186/s13017-020-0288-4

19. Kobayashi M, Tsujimoto H, Takahata R, et al. "Association between the frequency of glove change and the risk of blood and body fluid exposure in gastrointestinal surgery." World J Surg. 2020;44(11):3695-3701. doi:10.1007/s00268-020-05681-1

20. Kim K, Zhu M, Munro JT, Young SW. "Glove change to reduce the risk of surgical site infection or prosthetic joint infection in arthroplasty surgeries: a systematic review." ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(9):1009-1015. doi:10.1111/ans.14936

21. NIHR Global Research Health Unit on Global Surgery. "Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh): a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries." Lancet. 2022;400(10365):1767-1776. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01884-0