The (Sterile) Gloves Are Coming Off
Are sterile gloves worth the extra cost for common cutaneous surgeries? This systematic review and meta-analysis provides answers.
CAVEATS
Risk for bias and limited applicability
Not every trial in this meta-analysis was an RCT, and the inclusion of observational studies increases the risk for bias. However, the results of the observational studies were similar to those of the RCTs, somewhat alleviating this potential threat to validity.
It is worth noting that more extensive surgeries and more complicated repairs were not included in the trials, meaning that the findings are limited to oral surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, standard incisions, and laceration repairs.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Inertia, medicolegal concerns, and personal preference
Clinical inertia may lead to slow adoption of these recommendations. Providers may worry about potential medicolegal ramifications from this change.1 Lastly, some providers may prefer the fit and feel of sterile gloves for their procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
Copyright © 2018. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2018; 67[8]:507-508).
