Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-04T16:28:59.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of 4 Different Types of Surgical Gloves Used for Preventing Blood Contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Andreas Wittmann ,
Nenad Kralj ,
Jan Köver ,
Klaus Gasthaus ,
Hartmut Lerch  and
Friedrich Hofmann
Andreas Wittmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
Nenad Kralj
Affiliation:
Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
Jan Köver
Affiliation:
Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
Klaus Gasthaus
Affiliation:
Helios Klinikum Wuppertal, Klinik fur Nuklearmedizin, Wuppertal, Germany
Hartmut Lerch
Affiliation:
Helios Klinikum Wuppertal, Klinik fur Nuklearmedizin, Wuppertal, Germany
Friedrich Hofmann
Affiliation:
Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
*
Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Gaussstrasse 20, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany (andwitt@uni-wuppertal.de)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Needlestick injuries are always associated with a risk of infection, because these types of punctures may expose healthcare workers to a patient's blood and/or body fluids.

Objective.

To compare the efficacy of 4 different types of surgical gloves for preventing exposure to blood as a result of needlestick injury.

Methods.

For simulation of needlestick injury, a circular sample of pork skin was tightened onto a bracket, and a single finger from a medical glove was stretched over the sample. First, a powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating was used to test blood contact. Second, a glove with a patented puncture indication system was used to test blood contact with a double-gloved hand. Third, 2 powder-free latex medical gloves of the same size and hand were combined for double gloving, again to test blood contact. Finally, we tested a glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside. The punctures were carried out using diverse sharp surgical devices that were contaminated with 99Tc-marked blood. The amount of blood contact was determined from the transmitted radioactivity.

Results.

For the powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating, a mean volume of 0.048 μL of blood (standard error of the mean [SEM], 0.077 μL.) was transferred in punctures with an automated lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. For the glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside, the mean volume of blood transferred was 0.030 μL (SEM, 0.0056 μL) with a single glove and was 0.024 μL (SEM, 0.003 μL) with 2 gloves. For the glove with the patented puncture indication system, a mean volume of 0.024 μL, (SEM, 0.003 μL) of blood was transferred.

Conclusions.

Double gloving or the use of a glove with disinfectant can result in a decrease in the volume of blood transferred. Therefore, the use of either of these gloving systems could help to minimize the risk of bloodborne infections for medical staff.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 498 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Kralj, N, Beie, M, Hofmann, F. Surgical gloves—how well do they protect against infections? [in German]. Gesundheitswesen 1999;61:398–403.Google Scholar
2. Makary, MA, Al-Attar, A, Holzmueller, CG, et al. Needlestick Injuries among surgeons in training. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2693–2699.Google Scholar
3. Zimmermann, CH, Junghanns, K. Use of a new perforation indication system in surgical routine [in German]. Hyg Med 1996;21:486–492.Google Scholar
4. Eckersley, JR, Williamson, DM. Glove punctures in an orthopaedic trauma unit. Injury 1990;21:177–178.Google Scholar
5. Wright, KU, Moran, CG, Briggs, PJ. Glove perforation during hip arthroplasty: a randomised prospective study of a new taperpoint needle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75(6):918–920.Google Scholar
6. Hollaus, PH, Lax, F, Janakiev, D, Wurnig, PN, Pridu, NS. Glove perforation rate in open lung surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;15:461–464.Google Scholar
7. Rieger, MA, Hasselhorn, HM, Beie, M, Kralj, N, Vetter, HD, Hofmann, F. Personnel-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus: underestimation of exposure. Arch Intern Med 2000;161:2313–2316.Google Scholar
8. Heeg, P. Safety aspects of surgical gloves [in German]. Operat Orthop Traumatol 1993;5:291–293.Google Scholar
9. Wittmann, A, Kralj, N, Köver, J, Gasthaus, K, Hofmann, F. Study of blood contact in simulated surgical needlestick injuries with single or double latex gloving. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(1):53–56.Google Scholar
10. Bennett, NT, Howard, RJ. Quantity of blood inoculated in a needlestick injury from suture needles. J Am Coll Surg 1994;178(2):107–110.Google Scholar
11. Wittmann, A, Kralj, N, Hofmann, F. Übertragene Blutvolumina nach Kan-ülenstichverletzungen. In: Wrbitzky, R, Bader, M, hrsg. Dokumentation der 46. Jahrestagung der Deutsche Gesellschaft für Arbeitsmedizin und Umweltmedizin. Stuttgart, Germany: Gentner Verlag; 2007:653–656.Google Scholar
12. Bennett, B, Duff, P. The effect of double gloving on frequency of glove perforations. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78(6):1019–1022.Google Scholar
13. Bebbington, MW, Treisdman, MJ. The use of a surgical assist device to reduce glove perforation in post vaginal repair: a randomised control trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175(4 Pt l):862–866.Google Scholar
14. Greco, RJ, Garza, JR. Use of double gloves to protect the surgeon from blood contact during aesthetic procedures. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1995;19:265–267.Google Scholar
15. Naver, LP, Gottrup, F. Incidence of glove perforations in gastrointestinal surgery and the protective effect of double gloves: a prospective, randomised controlled study. Eur J Surg 2003;166(4):293–295.Google Scholar
16. Cole, RP, Gault, CT. Glove perforation during plastic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 1989;42:481–483.Google Scholar
17. Thomas, S, Agarwal, M, Mehta, G. Intraoperative glove perforation—single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination. Postgrad Med J 2001;77:458–460.Google Scholar
18. König, M, Bruha, M, Hirsch, HA. Perforation of surgical gloves in gynecologic operations and abdominal cesarean section [in German]. Ge-burtsh Frauenheilk 1992;52:109–112.Google Scholar
19. Manson, TT, Bromberg, WG, Thacker, JG, McGregor, W, Morgan, RF, Redlich, RF. A new glove puncture detection system. J Emerg Med 1995;13:357–364.Google Scholar
20. Duron, JJ, Keilani, K, Elian, NG. Efficacy of double gloving with coloured inner pair for immediate detection of operative glove perforations. Eur J Surg 1996;162:941–944.Google Scholar
21. Florman, S, Burgdorf, M, Finigan, K, Slakey, D, Hewitt, R, Nichols, RL. Efficacy of double gloving with an intrinsic indicator system. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2005;6(4):385–395.Google Scholar
22. Tanner, J, Parkinson, H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(3):CD003087.Google Scholar
23. Beie, M, Kralj, N, Sieker, S, Hofmann, F. Infektionsschutz im Arbeitsleben—Studien zum Tastsinn bei einfacher bzw. doppelter Behandschu-hung. In: Schäcke, G, Lüth, P, hrsg. Dokumentationsband über 40. Jahrestagung der Deutsche Gesellschaft für Arbeitsmedizin und Umweltmedizin. Fulda, Germany: Rindt Druck; 2000:310–312.Google Scholar
24. Novak, CB, Patterson, MM, Mackinnon, SE. Evaluation of hand sensibility with single and double latex gloves. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;103(1):128–131.Google Scholar
25. Bricout, F, Moraillon, A, Sonntag, P, Hoerner, P, Blackwelder, W, Plotkin, S. Virus-inhibiting surgical glove to reduce the risk of infection by enveloped viruses. J Med Virol 2003;69(4):538–545.Google Scholar
26. Sonntag, P, Hoerner, P, Cheymol, A, Argy, G, Riess, G, Reiter, G. Biocide squirting from an elastomeric tri-layer film. Nat Mater 2004;3(5):311–315.Google Scholar
27. Krikorian, R, Lozach-Perlant, A, Ferrier-Rembert, A, et al. Standardization of needlestick injury and evaluation of a novel virus-inhibiting protective glove. J Hosp Infect 2007;66(4):339–345.Google Scholar
28. Bennett, NT, Howard, RJ. Quantity of blood inoculated in a needlestick injury from suture needles. J Am Coll Surg 1994;178(2): 107–110.Google Scholar
29. Bouvet, E, Pellissier, G, Abiteboul, D, L'Hériteau, F; Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers. Is double gloving an effective barrier to protect surgeons against blood exposure due to needlestick injury? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:928–929.Google Scholar