Surgical Gloves Should Not Be Re-used

Hospitals around the world used to routinely wash, pair, powder, pack, and re-sterilize surgical gloves. Many senior hospital staff may remember these procedures. Reusable surgical gloves were generally thicker to stand the strain of reprocessing, but this made them less sensitive and less comfortable than present-day gloves.

The high incidence of infection, particularly Staphylococcus aurous, has caused the reprocessing of gloves to be discontinued. Re-processing was also a very labour-intensive procedure and therefore very expensive to the health service.

Who is responsible?

Re-using surgical gloves unfairly places the burden of glove inspection on the hospital staff who become responsible for deciding when a surgical glove is no longer reliable barrier against the risk of bloodborne pathogens. The deterioration in a glove is inevitable but not always immediately visible to the human eye.

Air inflation is not a reliable test for punctures.

Unbroken natural rubber latex, like an unused surgeon's glove, is impermeable to air, water, and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus¹.

Research has shown that during normal stresses of use, the latex glove barrier breaks down in direct relationship to the time worn². Studies have also shown that 50% of glove punctures or perforations are not noticed by the wearer³. This means the risk of infection to both health worker and patient increases significantly the longer the glove is worn (especially if the glove is re-used). The increase in risk may not be obvious to the user.

Modern surgeons gloves are designed for the conditions of modern medicine. They are strong but very thin to increase sensitivity and comfort. They are not intended for over extended use or re-sterilization, and should not be relied on to maintain a sterile barrier when used contrary to makers recommendations for safety.

1. Dalgleish AG et al, Surgical gloves as a mechanical barrier; Br J Surg 1988; 75: 171.
2. Albin MS et al, Anatomy of a defective barrier; Crit Care Med 1992; 20,2: 170.
3. Dobbs RDA et al, Self protection in surgery; Br J Surg 1990; 77: 219.