Muto C A, Sistrom M G, Strain B A, Farr B M
Box 473, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA.
Arch Surg. 2000 Aug;135(8):982-5. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.135.8.982.
That water leakage rates and protection against blood-borne pathogens should not vary as a function of latex content among Food and Drug Administration-approved gloves, allowing avoidance of unnecessary latex exposure.
Eighteen different glove types were purchased and tested using the American Society for Testing Methods Standard Test for Detecting Holes in medical gloves, which involves mounting the glove on a plastic tube, pouring a liter of tap water into the glove, and visually inspecting the glove initially and after 2 minutes. Half of the gloves were tested straight from the package and half after a standardized manipulation.
A university hospital.
Eleven sterile glove types (5 high latex content, 4 low latex content, and 2 nonlatex content), and 7 nonsterile examination glove types (2 high latex content, 2 low latex content, and 3 nonlatex content) were tested (total tested, 3720 gloves). Leakage rates were greater for examination than for surgical gloves (relative risk [RR], 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.96), for manipulated than for unused gloves (RR, 2.89, 5% CI, 1.98-4.22), and for low latex content surgical gloves (RR, 2.58, 95% CI, 1.35-4.92) or nonlatex content surgical gloves (RR, 4.93, 95% CI, 2.35-10.32) than for high latex content surgical gloves. Significant differences were observed among low latex content surgical gloves (P</=.001) and all types of examination gloves (P =.0015) especially after the standardized manipulation (leakage rates ranging from 0%-30%).
Food and Drug Administration approval should not be interpreted as suggesting equality of different manufacturers' products. Some low latex and nonlatex content gloves are very resistant to leakage and should provide an effective barrier for preventing exposure to blood-borne pathogens, while others may not.
在食品药品监督管理局批准的手套中，漏水率以及对血源性病原体的防护不应因乳胶含量的不同而有所差异，从而避免不必要的乳胶接触。
购买了18种不同类型的手套，并按照美国材料与试验协会检测医用手套破洞的标准测试方法进行测试，该方法包括将手套套在塑料管上，向手套中倒入一升自来水，然后在初始和2分钟后目视检查手套。一半的手套直接从包装中取出进行测试，另一半在经过标准化操作后进行测试。
一家大学医院。
测试了11种无菌手套类型（5种高乳胶含量、4种低乳胶含量和2种无乳胶含量）以及7种非无菌检查手套类型（2种高乳胶含量、2种低乳胶含量和3种无乳胶含量）（总共测试3720只手套）。检查手套的漏水率高于手术手套（相对风险[RR]为1.41，95%置信区间[CI]为1.01 - 1.96），经过操作的手套高于未使用的手套（RR为2.89，95% CI为1.98 - 4.22），低乳胶含量的手术手套（RR为2.58，95% CI为1.35 - 4.92）或无乳胶含量的手术手套（RR为4.93，95% CI为2.35 - 10.32）高于高乳胶含量的手术手套。在低乳胶含量的手术手套（P≤0.001）和所有类型的检查手套（P = 0.0015）中观察到显著差异，尤其是在标准化操作之后（漏水率范围为0% - 30%）。
食品药品监督管理局的批准不应被解释为意味着不同制造商的产品具有同等质量。一些低乳胶和无乳胶含量的手套非常抗渗漏，应为预防血源性病原体暴露提供有效的屏障，而其他手套可能并非如此。
