比较 4 种不同类型的手术手套用于预防血液接触。

Comparison of 4 different types of surgical gloves used for preventing blood contact.

机构信息

Department of Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany.

出版信息

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 May;31(5):498-502. doi: 10.1086/652158.

DOI:10.1086/652158

PMID:20334549

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 (99)Tc-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 microL of blood (standard error of the mean [SEM], 0.077 microL) 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 microL (SEM, 0.0056 microL) with a single glove and was 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) with 2 gloves. For the glove with the patented puncture indication system, a mean volume of 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) 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.

摘要

背景

针刺伤总是伴随着感染的风险，因为这些类型的刺伤可能使医护人员接触到患者的血液和/或体液。

目的

比较 4 种不同类型的手术手套在预防因针刺伤而暴露于血液方面的效果。

方法

为了模拟针刺伤，将一块猪皮样本用圆形支架固定，并将一只医用手套的手指拉伸到样本上。首先，使用一种涂有凝胶的无粉手术手套来测试血液接触情况。其次，使用一种具有专利穿刺指示系统的手套来测试双层手套时的血液接触情况。第三，将两只相同尺寸和手型的无粉乳胶医用手套组合起来进行双层手套，再次测试血液接触情况。最后，我们测试了一种内部带有消毒剂的手套。使用各种沾有（99）Tc 标记血液的锋利手术器械进行穿刺。通过透射放射性确定血液接触量。

结果

对于涂有凝胶的无粉手术手套，在深度为 2.4 毫米的自动采血针刺穿 1 层乳胶的情况下，平均有 0.048微升（标准误差均值[SEM]，0.077 微升）的血液转移。对于内部带有消毒剂的手套，单层手套的平均血液转移量为 0.030 微升（SEM，0.0056 微升），双层手套的平均血液转移量为 0.024 微升（SEM，0.003 微升）。对于具有专利穿刺指示系统的手套，平均有 0.024 微升（SEM，0.003 微升）的血液转移。