Search

Background: Disinfection of gloves can be used during a pandemic situation when performing various procedures on the same patient or when removing personal protective equipment. If performing glove disinfection, there is a need to check the compatibility of gloves with the disinfectant product used., Aim: To test the resistance of nitrile gloves to various disinfectant solutions., Methods: One hundred percent powder-free nitrile gloves, composed of nitrile butadiene rubber compounds, were exposed to various disinfectants to analyse resistance. The seven most commonly used disinfectant solutions in the healthcare field were selected for testing. The effects of each disinfectant were analysed in comparison with the control group (untreated glove). For tensile testing, the thickness of each test specimen was measured with a micrometer., Findings: Bleach solution decreased the breaking load of gloves, although to a lesser extent than disinfectants that contained ethanol., Conclusion: Disinfectants that contain alcohol decrease the breaking load of nitrile gloves., (Copyright © 2020 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inappropriate use of medical gloves may support microbial transmission. New strategies could increase the safety of medical gloves without the risk of patient and surface contamination., Aim: To compare the efficacy of synthetic antibacterial nitrile medical gloves coated with polyhexamethylen-biguanid hydrochloride (PHMB) on the external surface with identical non-antibacterial medical gloves in reducing glove contamination after common patient care measures in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting., Methods: ICU staff wore either standard or antibacterial gloves during patient care activities. The number of bacteria on gloves was measured semi-quantitatively immediately after the performance of four clinical activities., Findings: There was a significant difference in mean bacterial growth [colony-forming units (cfu)] between control gloves and antibacterial gloves {60 [standard deviation (SD) 23] vs 16 (SD 23) cfu/glove imprint, P < 0.001}. In three of the four clinical activities (intravenous fluid handling, oral toilet and physiotherapy), the antibacterial gloves had significantly less bacterial contamination compared with the control gloves (P = 0.011 and <0.001, respectively). Although antibacterial gloves showed lower bacterial contamination after changing linen compared with control gloves, the difference was not significant (P = 0.311)., Conclusion: This study showed that use of antibacterial medical gloves significantly reduced bacterial contamination after typical patient care activities in 57% of the investigated clinical activities (P < 0.01). The use of antibacterial medical gloves may support reduction of cross-contamination in the ICU setting., (Copyright © 2015 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Intact surgical gloves are a barrier to hepatitis B virus and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but once perforated during surgery they cannot sustain adequate defence. This study examines the rate of glove perforations during surgery at a District General Hospital. In total, 275 pairs of gloves were collected from 100 consecutive operations. In the 43% of gloves that had been damaged 200 perforations were recorded. The mean rate per operation in the surgeon's gloves was 1.18. Injuries to the non-dominant index finger were significantly higher than injuries to other parts of the hand. Injuries occurred particularly during manipulation of the needles and at wound closure. Consultants were more likely to have glove perforation than juniors. Operations requiring manipulation of instruments deep within the wound had a higher rate than those on the surface. The results of the study indicate that a surgeon risks more than one hepatitis B infection per lifetime and that at least one in 1500 surgeons is likely to be infected by HIV during the next 35 years.

Three types of gloves, 'Biogel', 'Regent Dispo Surgical' gloves and Ansell gammex were perforated, and contaminated with Escherichia coli or Pseudomonas aeruginosa as test organisms applied either to the hand or the glove surface. The glove surface was decontaminated with alcoholic chlorhexidine ('Hibisol'), methylated spirit, or soap and water. The experiments were performed in triplicate on three separate days. The experiments were designed to study the ability of the three disinfection methods to reduce the bacterial count of 10(6) colony forming units (cfu) ml-1 (applied to perforated gloves or hands) sufficiently to permit the re-use of such gloves for non-sterile ward procedures. The best method of disinfection was using alcoholic chlorhexidine which not only reduced glove surface carriage but also reduced transfer of bacteria to the hands through the perforation in the gloves. Soap and water was the least effective. Escherichia coli was more easily removed than P. aeruginosa. We recommend that non-sterile ward procedures may be carried out even after gloves have been perforated provided alcoholic chlorhexidine is used between each procedure to reduce cross-infection between patients.

There is a need for wider adoption of safer surgical techniques to reduce the chances of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission in the operating theatre. When a patient is known to have HIV infection extra precautions, including the wearing of additional protective clothing, should be carried out, even though it is not known whether such special measures are of value.

Barrier precautions are a fundamental component of any infection control strategy and a critical aspect of all isolation systems. Because many infections are transmitted from patient-to-patient via the hands of personnel, gloves and gowns are widely recommended to provide an extra measure of protection against cross-infection. It is not clear whether gloves are superior to handwashing (if performed obsessionally) in this respect, and there is little evidence that gowns confer additional benefit. These concerns notwithstanding, barrier precautions can substantially reduce the risk of some infections, such as respiratory syncytial virus disease. On the other hand, the modes of transmission of many infections are complex (e.g. with rotavirus) or controversial (e.g. with rhinovirus), and, even though hands are involved in transmission, barrier precautions alone may not suffice to prevent spread. Moreover, neither gloves nor gowns can prevent nosocomial infections caused by endogenous microbial flora; perhaps this explains the limited efficacy of barrier precautions in reducing the endemic rate of infection due to bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa in intensive care units. Barrier precautions may also fail if colonized patients are not identified promptly. One potential solution to this problem is 'body substance isolation' (BSI), in which all patients are considered to be potential carriers of nosocomial pathogens whether or not they have been cultured or have developed a clinical infection. In BSI barrier techniques are used when any potentially contaminated patient material is handled. BSI also provides barrier protection from bloodborne pathogens for personnel.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The amount of endotoxin on surgical gloves was investigated by the limulus chromogenic substrate method. Heavy endotoxin contamination was observed on the outside of certain surgical gloves sold in Sweden. Given an endotoxin absorption of 10% to the patients, one of the types of gloves studied would cause fever, chills, headache and muscle pain. The amount of endotoxin on the gloves could be minimized by rinsing in endotoxin-free water. We conclude that the manufacturing process of latex gloves should be checked microbiologically for Gram-negative bacteria before sterilization. Alternatively, the amount of endotoxin should be checked on the product by the limulus ameobocyte lysate test before release.

The frequency of unused surgeons' gloves with perforations was investigated by using a watertightness test. Lot-to-lot variations and inter-lot variation were found. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the quality of the lot is in accordance with the stated Acceptable Quality Level.