Investigation of Incidence and Risk Factors for Surgical Glove Perforation in Small Animal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify incidence and risk factors for surgical glove perforation in small animal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Surgical gloves (n = 2132) worn in 363 surgical procedures. METHODS: All gloves worn by operative personnel were assessed for perforation at end-procedure using a water leak test. Putative risk factors were recorded by a surgical team member. Associations between risk factors and perforation were assessed using multivariable multi-level random-effects logistic regression models to control for hierarchical data structure. RESULTS: At least 1 glove perforation occurred in 26.2% of procedures. Identified risk factors for glove perforation included increased surgical duration (surgery >1 hour OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.12-2.86), performing orthopedic procedures (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.23-2.88), any procedure using powered instruments (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.21-3.09) or surgical wire (OR = 3.02; 95% CI = 1.50-6.05), use of polyisoprene as a glove material (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.05-2.39), and operative role as primary surgeon (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.35-2.98). The ability of the wearer to detect perforations intraoperatively was poor, with a sensitivity of 30.8%. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high incidence of unrecognized glove perforations in small animal surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".