Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Non-Sterile Clean Gloves versus Sterile Gloves for Uncomplicated Wound and Laceration Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical, Economic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Regenio Akira Handoyo; John M. Sangkai
The Indonesian Journal of General Medicine Vol. 18 No. 1 (2025): The Indonesian Journal of General Medicine
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/y0krv256

Abstract

Introduction The use of sterile gloves is a deeply entrenched standard of care for surgical procedures, including the repair of cutaneous wounds and lacerations, to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). However, this practice is resource-intensive and its necessity for minor, non-operating room procedures is increasingly questioned. This review evaluates the clinical and economic rationale for using clean, non-sterile gloves as an evidence-based alternative in outpatient and emergency settings (Hamam et al., 2024; Brewer et al., 2016). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL) were searched through May 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies comparing sterile versus non-sterile gloves for wound repair (Hamam et al., 2024). The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI. Secondary outcomes (16 total) included cost-effectiveness, procedure duration, and adverse events. Methodological quality was rigorously assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools (Mahraoui et al., 2024; Hamam et al., 2024). Results Ten primary studies (6 RCTs, 4 observational) and three systematic reviews, encompassing over 21,000 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative meta-analysis of RCTs found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of SSI between the non-sterile glove group and the sterile glove group. Pooled data from recent meta-analyses confirm this finding (Risk Ratio 1.17, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.88–1.55, P=.62) (Hamam et al., 2024). This result was highly robust, with no statistical heterogeneity (I² = 0%) (Hamam et al., 2024; Brewer et al., 2016). Evidence from multiple primary studies confirmed that non-sterile gloves are a highly cost-effective option, with sterile gloves costing up to seven times more per pair (Perelman et al., 2004; Mehta et al., 2014). Discussion The aggregated evidence demonstrates high-confidence non-inferiority for the use of clean, non-sterile gloves in uncomplicated, superficial wound repairs in immunocompetent patients (Heal et al., 2015; Zwaans et al., 2022). This is clinically plausible as traumatic lacerations are already contaminated, and a "clean" technique (including sterile instruments) is sufficient to prevent iatrogenic infection. However, the evidence clearly does not support non-sterile glove use for high-risk scenarios, such as in immunocompromised patients (Zwaans et al., 2022) or for complex, deep-tissue reconstructions (Rogues et al., 2007). A significant gap exists in the literature regarding patient-reported outcomes, particularly long-term cosmetic results. Conclusion Clean, non-sterile gloves are a safe, cost-effective, and evidence-based standard of care for the vast majority of uncomplicated laceration and wound repairs performed outside a formal operating room in immunocompetent patients. Clinical guidelines and institutional policies should be updated to reflect this evidence, promoting high-value care and reducing medical waste.
Endourological Management of Urinary Tract Strictures: A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Durability across the Ureter and Urethra Regenio Akira Handoyo; Ilham Saptia Nugraha
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/hm6hws79

Abstract

Introduction Urinary tract strictures, a constellation of fibrotic conditions encompassing urethral stricture disease (USD) and benign ureteral strictures (US), impose significant morbidity due to the aggressive nature of recurrence after traditional mechanical endoscopic management (Yeow et al., 2024; Malkhasyan et al., 2013). While open surgical reconstruction remains the established gold standard for complex lesions, endourological methods are frequently attempted as the initial management strategy, especially for shorter strictures or patients with multiple comorbidities (Stein et al., 2001; Buckley et al., 2014). This systematic review provides an integrated, in-depth synthesis of recent, high-certainty evidence concerning the long-term efficacy, functional outcomes, and safety profiles of advanced endourological modalities, specifically focusing on Drug-Coated Balloons (DCB) for the urethra and precise laser-assisted endoureterotomy for the ureter (DeLong et al., 2025; Gökçe et al., 2022). Methods A rigorous systematic literature search, adhering strictly to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, was performed across major biomedical databases, targeting studies published between 1998 and 2025 (Page et al., 2021). Inclusion criteria required studies to report comparative outcomes or long-term follow-up (minimum 12 months) of procedures such as dilation, direct vision internal urethrotomy (DVIU), DCB, balloon ureteroplasty, and endoureterotomy (Patel et al., 2024). A highly selected cohort of at least fifteen high-quality clinical studies, including pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohorts, were included for detailed quantitative synthesis (Patel et al., 2024). Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies (Higgins et al., 2011). A total of eleven distinct clinical and mechanistic outcomes were quantified, including the five-year Freedom from Re-intervention (FFR), Maximum Urinary Flow Rate (Qmax), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and the histological quality of wound healing (DeLong et al., 2025; Gökçe et al., 2022). Results The combined analysis across the urinary tract demonstrated a significant clinical superiority of modern, adjunct-enhanced endourology (DeLong et al., 2025). Traditional mechanical management (dilation or DVIU) of anterior urethral strictures yields long-term recurrence rates ranging from 60% to 80%, confirming the inherent limitation of purely physical treatment against spongiofibrosis (Patel et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2024). In sharp contrast, the application of the paclitaxel-eluting DCB in recurrent bulbar USD (≤ 2 cm) demonstrated remarkable long-term durability, achieving an estimated FFR of 71.7% at five years in the ROBUST I trial (DeLong et al., 2025). This sustained success was functionally confirmed, with mean Qmax increasing from a severely obstructed 5.0 mL/s at baseline to 19.9 mL/s at the five-year follow-up, alongside a profound reduction in mean IPSS from 25.2 to 7.2 (DeLong et al., 2025). For ureteral strictures, combination techniques, such as balloon dilation coupled with endoureterotomy for lower ureteral strictures, achieved high success rates of 86.67% at one year (Diao et al., 2023). Preclinical data further indicated that Ho:YAG laser endoureterotomy yields superior histological remodeling and a reduced fibrotic response compared to mechanical balloon dilation alone (Gökçe et al., 2022). Discussion The synthesized data compels a major revision of clinical algorithms, strongly endorsing the deployment of DCB as a validated, durable, minimally invasive option for selected recurrent bulbar urethral strictures, effectively interrupting the pathological cycle of injury and re-scarring (Yeow et al., 2024). In the ureter, optimal outcomes rely heavily on technical refinement—specifically, utilizing precise laser incision and careful patient selection, emphasizing that shorter stricture length is the primary predictor of endourological success in both tracts (Gökçe et al., 2022; Heyns et al., 1998). The high complication risks observed in vulnerable cohorts, notably kidney transplant patients managed endourologically, further stress the need for conservative selection criteria, often favoring upfront open reconstruction for complex lesions (Wang et al., 2024). Conclusion Durable endourological success across the urinary tract is contingent upon the meticulous selection of patients and the strategic integration of modern, biologically or technically enhanced technologies (Buckley et al., 2014). The DCB is established as a highly effective, sustained treatment for recurrent short bulbar USD, offering objective and subjective relief comparable to long-term open reconstruction outcomes (DeLong et al., 2025; Stein et al., 2001). For ureteral strictures, precise laser endoureterotomy combined with optimal stenting offers the best endoscopic outcomes by promoting favorable tissue remodeling (Gökçe et al., 2022). Future research must prioritize validating DCB use in longer, complex urethral strictures and conducting definitive RCTs to confirm the long-term clinical superiority of Ho:YAG laser endoureterotomy in human ureteral stricture management (Ricketts et al., 2024; Gökçe et al., 2022).