Korniewicz D M, Laughon B E, Butz A, Larson E
School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205.
Nurs Res. 1989 May-Jun;38(3):144-6.
In a series of experiments the integrity of vinyl and latex procedure gloves were tested under in-use conditions. Both types of gloves were tested by three methods: watertight (645 samples), bacterial penetration (50), and dye exclusion (90). Results of the watertight test demonstrated visible defects in 4.1% of vinyl and 2.7% in latex gloves. Twenty percent of latex gloves and 34% of vinyl gloves which had passed the watertight test allowed penetration of Serratia marcescens when worn by volunteers. A series of manipulations designed to simulate approximately 15 minutes of clinical activity in an intensive care unit resulted in failure rates as high as 66%. Using the dye penetration test, there was a statistically significant difference between vinyl and latex procedure gloves with full manipulations, with failure rates of 53% and 3%, respectively. Both types of gloves provided some barrier protection. However, latex gloves performed better when stressed.
在一系列实验中,对乙烯基和乳胶手术手套在实际使用条件下的完整性进行了测试。两种手套均通过三种方法进行测试:防水性(645个样本)、细菌穿透性(50个)和染料排除法(90个)。防水测试结果显示,4.1%的乙烯基手套和2.7%的乳胶手套存在可见缺陷。在通过防水测试的乳胶手套中,20%以及乙烯基手套中34%在志愿者佩戴时允许粘质沙雷氏菌穿透。一系列旨在模拟重症监护病房约15分钟临床活动的操作导致失败率高达66%。使用染料渗透测试,经过充分操作的乙烯基和乳胶手术手套之间存在统计学上的显著差异,失败率分别为53%和3%。两种手套都提供了一定的屏障保护。然而,在承受压力时,乳胶手套表现更好。