#2 Lacerations: Sterile Gloves & Water?
Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits
Join NowAlready a CFPCLearn Member? Log in
- Randomized-controlled trial (RCT)1 of 816 immunocompetent patients (age ≥1) in Canadian emergency departments compared sterile vs. non-sterile gloves (both latex-free) in suture repair of lacerations.
- Infection rates by day 23: Sterile gloves 6% vs. non-sterile 4.3% (not statistically different).
- One meta-analysis2 of three RCTs (1328 patients) comparing tap water to saline for irrigation of lacerations.
- Infection rates: Tap water 4.4% vs. saline 6.7% (not statistically different, p=0.16).
- Though there is a suggestion that saline increases the risk of infection, this is mainly driven by a small study of non-sterile saline and one study of questionable randomization.
- If we focus on the best study—a high-quality RCT of 713 patients comparing tap water and sterile saline with no difference in infections—it appears that sterile saline offers no advantage over tap water.3
- Infection rates: Tap water 4.4% vs. saline 6.7% (not statistically different, p=0.16).
- The study of non-sterile gloves is the only RCT that we have, but it is of high quality and of reasonable size.
- Two older studies (with 50 and 408 patients)4,5 with questionable randomization surprisingly compared no gloves at all to sterile gloves, and infections did not differ:
- These two studies have significant limitations, and suturing without any gloves is clearly not appropriate for a host of reasons including blood-borne infectious diseases.
- However, these do lend support to the idea that sterile gloves likely offer little advantage in the repair of simple lacerations.