The use of blunt needles does not reduce glove perforations during obstetrical laceration repair

• Published in: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Vol. 199; no. 6; pp. 639.e1 - 639.e4
• Main Authors: Wilson, Lisa K., MD, Sullivan, Scott, MD, MSCR, Goodnight, William, MD, Chang, Eugene Y., MD, Soper, David, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Mosby, Inc 01.01.2008; Elsevier
• Subjects: Accidents, Occupational - prevention & control; Biological and medical sciences; blunt needles; Delivery, Obstetric - instrumentation; Delivery, Obstetric - methods; Equipment Design; Equipment Safety; Female; Gloves, Surgical; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Incidence; Lacerations - surgery; Medical sciences; Needles; needlestick injuries; Needlestick Injuries - epidemiology; Needlestick Injuries - prevention & control; obstetric laceration; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Pregnancy; Probability; Prospective Studies; Reference Values; Risk Assessment; Sensitivity and Specificity; Suture Techniques - instrumentation; needlestick injuries; obstetric laceration; blunt needles; Laceration; Glove; Perforation; Gynecology; Needle; Repair; Obstetrics
• ISSN: 0002-9378; 1097-6868
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.028

Objective The objective of the study was to compare the rate of glove perforation for blunt and sharp needles used during obstetrical laceration repair. A secondary aim was to assess physician satisfaction with blunt needles. Study Design This was an institutional review board–approved, randomized, prospective trial. Patients with obstetric lacerations were randomized to repair with either blunt or sharp needles. Patient demographics, operator experience, and other clinical variables were collected. Physicians reported any percutaneous injuries and were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the assigned needles. Glove perforation was determined using a validated water test method. Results There were 438 patients enrolled in the trial: 221 in the control group and 217 in the study group. There was no statistical difference between groups in patient demographics, clinical variables, severity of laceration, or experience level of the surgeon. There was no difference in the glove perforation rate between blunt and sharp needles (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.95). There was poor correlation between reported perforations and those detected by water test (R2 = 0.33). The physicians reported that blunt needles were more difficult to use than sharp needles ( P = .0001). Conclusion There was no difference in the rate of surgical glove perforation for blunt, compared with sharp, needles used during vaginal laceration repair. Physicians also reported increased difficulty performing the repair with blunt needles.