['Despite some evidence that the wearing of rings may increase the microbial load, there is currently nothing to suggest that viable bacteria remain following a standard surgical scrub. The aim of the study was to examine the distribution and type of microbial flora seen on the hands of doctors following a standard surgical scrub.', "Ten surgeons and 10 anaesthetists, all of whom wore wedding rings on the fourth finger of their left hand, participated in the study. Each individual was asked to 'scrub-up' as for their normal first scrub of the day. Following completion of washing, the wedding ring was removed, its internal circumference swabbed and the swab placed in a culture medium. Volunteers placed each hand palm-down on separate agar plates. The plates were incubated and the number of colonies counted and classified.", 'The culture plates of one of the anaesthetists were damaged in transit leaving a total of 19 subjects for analysis. In all the palm imprint plates, coagulase-negative staphylococci were grown. One surgeon grew coagulase-negative staphylococci from the ring swab. A Candida spp. from the right hand of one surgeon was grown. There was no statistically significant difference between the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) cultured from the right and left (ring-wearing) hands of the surgeons (P = 0.260) and anaesthetists ( P = 0.345). There was no statistical difference in CFUs when surgeons were compared with anaesthetists (P = 0.383 for right hand and P = 0.234 for left).'] Are wedding rings a significant source of bacterial contamination following surgical scrubbing?