Jamal Ala, Wilkinson Stephen
Department of Surgery, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Mar;73(3):140-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02645.x.
Several manufacturers supply surgical gloves that have been individually tested (IT) for leaks. Other manufacturers supply gloves in which sample gloves from each batch are tested for leaks (batch tested: BT). The latter brands may be rejected by surgeons because of presumed increased risk of wound infection and staff exposure to patient pathogens. The influence of differences between glove brands on performance in surgery has not been extensively studied. The aims of the present study were to test the mechanical and microbiological integrity of IT compared to BT gloves.
A total of 110 unused gloves from each of an IT and a BT brand were tested for leaks, first, by observation of water-jets from water-filled gloves and second, by measuring electrical resistance between inside and outside the glove surfaces, to give a baseline measure. A total of 304 IT and 280 BT gloves were then similarly leak-tested after 98 clean surgical procedures. The hands and gloves of scrub team members were cultured postsurgery.
A total of 1/110 BT and 0/110 IT unused gloves contained leaks (NS, Fisher's exact test). Operative perforation rates were lower for BT compared with IT (8/280 cf. 22/304; P < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). There was no bias in types of operations or scrub team members to account for the difference. Growth of normal skin flora was found on virtually every wearer's hands post-operatively. Similar bacteria were frequently cultured from the outside of gloves at the conclusion of surgery (111/152 pairs IT cf. 122/140 pairs BT; P < 0.01, Fisher's exact test).
This study provides evidence that the clinical performance of BT gloves is no different to IT gloves. There was no significant difference in mechanical leak rates for unused gloves. Paradoxically, although IT gloves were more likely to show macro-perforations after surgery, the incidence of contamination on the surface of BT gloves was greater, possibly reflecting a qualitative difference in glove material. This study suggests that both types of gloves develop microporosity during use, which may allow transfer of bacteria from the surgeon's skin to the surface of the glove.
多家制造商提供经过单独测试(IT)以防渗漏的手术手套。其他制造商提供的手套是对每批中的抽样手套进行渗漏测试(批次测试:BT)。后一种品牌的手套可能会被外科医生拒收,因为他们认为伤口感染和工作人员接触患者病原体的风险会增加。手套品牌之间的差异对手术操作性能的影响尚未得到广泛研究。本研究的目的是测试与批次测试手套相比,单独测试手套的机械完整性和微生物完整性。
从一个单独测试品牌和一个批次测试品牌中各选取110只未使用过的手套进行渗漏测试,首先,通过观察充满水的手套喷出的水流,其次,通过测量手套内外表面之间的电阻,以得出基线测量值。然后,在98次清洁手术操作后,对304只单独测试手套和280只批次测试手套进行同样的渗漏测试。术后对洗手团队成员的手部和手套进行培养。
110只批次测试手套中有1只、110只单独测试手套中无手套存在渗漏(无显著性差异,Fisher精确检验)。批次测试手套的手术穿孔率低于单独测试手套(280只中有8只对比304只中有22只;P<0.05,Fisher精确检验)。手术类型或洗手团队成员之间不存在偏差来解释这种差异。术后几乎每位佩戴者的手上都发现了正常皮肤菌群的生长。手术结束时,经常从手套外部培养出类似的细菌(单独测试手套152对手套中有111对对比批次测试手套140对手套中有122对;P<0.01,Fisher精确检验)。
本研究提供的证据表明,批次测试手套的临床性能与单独测试手套并无差异。未使用手套的机械渗漏率无显著差异。矛盾的是,尽管单独测试手套在手术后更有可能出现大的穿孔,但批次测试手套表面的污染发生率更高,这可能反映了手套材料的质量差异。本研究表明,两种类型的手套在使用过程中都会形成微孔,这可能会使细菌从外科医生的皮肤转移到手套表面。