Perioperative infections can cause devastating results, especially in cases employing endoprostheses and/or allografts. To minimize bacterial contamination and thereby decrease infection rates, a series of experiments was performed to determine the role of several factors on intraoperative contamination.

In an initial pilot study, 102 surgical team members participating in clean orthopaedic cases were prospectively randomized to exchange or not exchange their outer pair of gloves one hour into the surgical procedures. Rodac plate cultures of the surgeon’s dominant gloved hand and of his or her gown sleeve were taken at baseline and again 15 minutes after potential glove exchange. The surgical gown type (reusable cloth versus disposable paper) utilized in each case was recorded. An unexpected overwhelming effect of gown type on bacterial contamination rates was detected, which overpowered any effect of glove exchange. The outer glove exchange experiment was then repeated with 251 prospectively randomized surgical team members, with all team members utilizing only disposable paper gowns. Otherwise the experimental protocol was the same. A final experiment was devised to test bacterial strike through of the two gown types. A standardized suspension (3 ml of coagulase negative staphylococcus containing 108 bacteria/ml) was applied to one side of the test materials and compressed with a 10 lb. weight. A rodac culture plate was applied to the opposite side of the material to determine bacterial strike through rates utilizing previously validated methodology.

The initial pilot experiment revealed a baseline sleeve culture positive rate of 41% with cloth gowns versus only 13% with disposable gowns (p=0.002, Students t-test). Cultures of the glove one hour and fifteen minutes into the operations revealed a 31% culture positive rate with reusable cloth gowns versus only 7% with disposable gowns (p=0.001), with a 4.38 x odds ratio. There was no statistically significant difference in the glove culture positive rate at one hour and fifteen minutes based on glove exchange (19% with glove retention vs. 10% following glove exchange p=0.19). There was no statistically significant difference in the culture positive rate between the two gown types when tested straight out of their sterile packaging (reusable gowns two positive cultures out of 50 cultures, disposable gowns zero positive cultures out of 50 cultures). On the second glove exchange experiment, surgeons exchanging gloves one hour into the case had a positive glove contamination rate of 13% compared to 23% in those retaining their original glove (p=0.04 Student’s t-test, odds ratio 0.51). The bacterial strike through study revealed that 22 of 25 cloth gowns allowed transmission of bacteria, whereas only 1 of 25 disposable paper gowns allowed transmission of bacteria (p=0.001, nonparametric sign rank test).

The choice of gown type had the greatest effect on the intraoperative culture positive rate of the surgeon’s dominant hand glove in our studies. Based on these results, at our institution, all orthopaedic surgeons now utilize only disposable paper gowns on all cases employing allograft or endoprosthesis implantation. We strongly recommend that only disposable paper gowns be utilized for any case with any orthopaedic implant materials and such gowns should be considered for all surgical cases. Exchange of the surgeon’s outer gloves prior to handling orthopaedic implant devices, especially if an hour of operating time has already elapsed, is also a recommended and prudent practice to diminish intraoperative contamination of the implant materials. The utilization of disposable drapes in addition to disposable gowns is also recommended due to the lower likelihood of bacterial strike through with currently available disposable synthetic materials. Following these recommended guidelines should help surgeons minimize the risk of intraoperative contamination and should thereby reduce the rate of infections.