Risk of Glove Perforation With Arthroscopic Knot Tying Using Different Surgical Gloves and High–Tensile Strength Sutures
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".