Search

The use of powder-free natural rubber or latex-free emergency medical examination gloves is especially important to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel to avoid eliciting an allergic reaction in the latex sensitized patient. The majority of our emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and firefighters are now wearing powder-free emergency medical examination gloves that comply with the stringent codes and standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while very few hospital emergency department personnel have been provided with NFPA-approved gloves. There are four well-defined goals of this report that will assist emergency medical services, fire departments, and hospitals in the selection and purchase of emergency medical examination gloves. First, we will review again the stringent regulations for emergency medical examination gloves that are outlined by the NFPA. This design and performance standard was devised by the NFPA to address protective clothing for emergency medical operations. The design and performance requirement of the emergency medical examination gloves were described in the NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 Edition. As of September 2003, the emergency medical examination glove must meet the new design and performance requirements of emergency medical examination gloves discussed in NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 2003 Edition.

Dusting powders were first applied to gloves to facilitate donning. After 1980, manufacturers devised innovative techniques to manufacture gloves without dusting powders. It has been well documented that the powders on gloves present a health hazard to patients, as well as healthcare workers. First, these powders elicit tissue toxicity in every tissue in the body. Second, these powders serve as carriers of latex allergen and may precipitate a life-threatening allergic reaction in sensitized patients. These well-documented hazards of glove powders have caused a growing number of emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firelighters, and hospitals to abandon the use of powdered emergency medical examination gloves, using only powder-free gloves. Powder-free latex as well as non-latex gloves are now available to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel. The use of powder-free natural rubber latex-free gloves is especially important to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, as well as emergency department personnel to avoid eliciting an allergic reaction in the latex sensitized patient. The majority of our emergency medical technicians, paramedics and firefighters are now wearing powder-free emergency medical examination gloves that comply with the stringent Codes and Standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while very few hospital emergency department personnel have been provided with NFPA approved gloves. It is the purpose of this report to review the stringent regulations for emergency medical examination gloves that are outlined by the NFPA. This design and performance Standard was devised by the NFPA to address protective clothing for emergency medical operations. The design and performance requirement of the emergency medical examination gloves were described in the NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 Edition. In September 2003, the emergency medical examination glove must meet the new design and performance requirements of emergency medical examination gloves discussed

Double-gloving has been shown to reduce conclusively the risk of operating room personnel's exposure to blood. Limiting risk of exposure to blood by double-gloving provides protection against the transmission of bloodborne diseases. Realizing the importance of double-gloving, a double-glove hole puncture indication system exists that accurately detects the presence of glove hole puncture in the presence of fluid. Once a glove puncture is recognized by this double-glove hole puncture indication system, it provides a warning to the surgeon to remove the punctured gloves, wash hands, and don a new, sterile double-glove hole puncture indication system. While accurately identifying the presence of glove hole puncture in the presence of fluid, this double-glove hole puncture indication system also has resistance to needle puncture superior to that of single gloves. It is the purpose of this study to document the resistance to needle puncture of latex and non-latex double-glove hole puncture indication systems using a reproducible experimental model. The resistance to needle puncture of the double-glove systems was significantly greater than that of the undergloves or outer gloves alone. The resistance to glove puncture of the non-latex and latex single and double-glove systems was significantly greater than those encountered by the latex single and double-glove systems, respectively. On the basis of their accuracy in detecting glove hole puncture, combined with their demonstrated superior resistance to surgical needle puncture as compared to single gloves, these latex and non-latex double-glove hole puncture indication systems are recommended for all surgical procedures.

During operative procedures, operating room personnel wear sterile surgical gloves designed to protect them and their patients against transmissible infections. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set compliance policy guides for manufacturers of gloves. The FDA allows surgeons' gloves whose leakage defect rates do not exceed 1.5 acceptable quality level (AQL) to be used in operating rooms. The implications of this policy are potentially enormous to operating room personnel and patients. This unacceptable risk to the personnel and patient could be significantly reduced by the use of sterile double surgical gloves. Because double-gloves are also susceptible to needle puncture, a double-glove hole indication system is urgently needed to immediately detect surgical needle glove punctures. This warning would allow surgeons to remove the double-gloves, wash their hands, and then don a sterile set of double-gloves with an indication system. During the last decade, Regent Medical has devised non-latex and latex double-glove hole puncture indication systems. The purpose of this comprehensive study is to detect the accuracy of the non-latex and latex double-glove hole puncture indication systems using five commonly used sterile surgical needles: the taper point surgical needle, tapercut surgical needle, reverse cutting edge surgical needle, taper cardiopoint surgical needle, and spatula surgical needle. After subjecting both the non-latex and latex double-glove hole puncture indication systems to surgical needle puncture in each glove fingertip, these double-glove systems were immersed in a sterile basin of saline, after which the double-gloved hands manipulated surgical instruments. Within two minutes, both the non-latex and latex hole puncture indication systems accurately detected needle punctures in all of the surgical gloves, regardless of the dimensions of the surgical needles. In addition, the size of the color change visualized through the translucent outer glove did not correlate with needle diameter. On the basis of this extensive experimental evaluation, both the non-latex and latex double-glove hole puncture indication systems should be used in all operative procedures by all operating room personnel.

The purpose of this study was to correlate the latex gloves' susceptibility to hydration to its development of glove expansion or irreversible elongation of the latex glove. During hydration, the Micro-Touch glove exhibited significantly more creep strain than did the Biogel gloves. Similarly, the Micro-Touch glove exhibited glove growth, while the Biogel glove maintained a uniform fit during hydration.

The barrier properties of natural rubber latex gloves have been of clinical interest since the concept of using an integrity monitor was introduced by me over 30 years ago. Although surgeons expect their gloves to serve as an effective barrier during use, products can and do fail. Failure is often unrecognized, resulting in the wearer's exposure to potential pathogens and the patient to microorganisms shed by surgical team members. Although a variety of solutions have been suggested (double gloving, cut-resistant gloves), these remedies do not alert the surgeon to a breach of barrier, the cost and consequences of which are astronomical to the health system. As a result, some form of breach detection device is now recommended to minimize the likelihood of exposure, infection, and/or allergy.

The growing use of outcomes research will have a significant effect on the way surgeons make decisions concerning glove product selection. These effects will be both direct and indirect, as payers begin to use outcome data to develop practice guidelines. to reduce morbidity and mortality rates, and to alleviate long-term cost and consequences of acquired latex allergy or powder-related postoperative complications in patients. This article reviews elements of risk associated with surgical gloves.