#178 All You Need is Glove: Are non-sterile gloves safe for excisions in the office?
CLINICAL QUESTION
Does the use of non-sterile (clean) gloves for office-based excisions result in more infections when compared to the use of sterile gloves?
BOTTOM LINE
Using non-sterile gloves does not increase the number of infections when compared to sterile gloves for outpatient minor/uncomplicated skin (not flap) excisions and laceration repair in immune-competent adults. The current standard of care of using sterile gloves in these procedures is likely unnecessary and more costly. Unclear if this applies to sebaceous cyst excision, as these weren’t studied.
Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits
Join NowAlready a CFPCLearn Member? Log in
EVIDENCE
- Minor skin excision:
- Australian primary care Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of 493 patients (mean age 65) for mean 2 cm excision (33% head/neck).1 Infection rate:
- 8.7% non-sterile gloves versus 9.3% sterile gloves, not statistically different.
- Prospective cohort of dermatologic surgery.2 Infection rates:
- 3,071 simple excisions: 1.7% non-sterile gloves versus 1.6% sterile gloves, not statistically different.
- 420 reconstructive (flap) procedures: Non-sterile gloves statistically significantly more infections versus sterile gloves (14.7% versus 1.6%).
- Retrospective primary care chart review (131 minor procedures).3 Infection rate:
- 2.4% non-sterile gloves (sterile gloves not reported).
- Australian primary care Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of 493 patients (mean age 65) for mean 2 cm excision (33% head/neck).1 Infection rate:
- Mohs dermatological surgery:
- Small RCT of 60 patients (mean age 73) with mean 2.2 cm excisions (85% head/neck).4 Infection rate:
- 3% non-sterile gloves versus 7% sterile gloves, not statistically significant.
- Three observational studies:
- One cohort (20,821 procedures):5 Sterile gloves reduces infection rate by 0.47% versus non-sterile (p=0.04).
- Two cohorts (1,400 and 2,025 procedures) found no difference in infection rates.6,7
- Small RCT of 60 patients (mean age 73) with mean 2.2 cm excisions (85% head/neck).4 Infection rate:
- Important exclusions:
- Sebaceous cyst excision1,2 (possibly due to existing infection2).
- Complex procedures (like closure requiring flaps)1 or found may have increased infection risk.2
- Immuno-compromised patients.1,4
- Other limitations:
- Mohs excisions often more complex with potentially multiple glove changes: possibly less primary care relevance.4-7
- Cohort studies: lower-level evidence.2,3,5-7
- Research indicates simple lacerations can be repaired/sutured using non-sterile gloves.8
- Another RCT shows that keeping sutured wounds dry beyond 12 hours did not reduce infection rates.9
- Sterile gloves cost 3.5-16 times more than non-sterile gloves.1,4,6,7
Latest Tools for Practice
#379 Bumpin’ Up the Protection? RSV Vaccine in Pregnancy
How effective and safe is the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine (AbrysvoTM) when given during pregnancy?
#378 Tony Romo-sozumab: Winning touchdown in osteoporosis or interception for the loss?
What is the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis?
#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives
In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?
