Korniewicz D M, Kirwin M, Cresci K, Larson E
School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1993 Jan;54(1):22-6. doi: 10.1080/15298669391354261.
The purpose of this study was to compare leakage rates of used latex and vinyl examination gloves from high and low risk clinical units. A total of 4838 latex and 1008 vinyl examination gloves were collected and tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) watertight leak test: three brands of latex [Brand A: n = 2920; Brand B: n = 284; Brand C: n = 1634; and one brand of vinyl gloves (Brand D: n = 1008]. Seventy percent of latex gloves and 46.7% of vinyl gloves were collected from the high risk units. In general, there were no significant differences in leakage rates for vinyl gloves between high and low risk units. However, latex gloves leaked significantly more often at stress levels 2 and 3 from the high risk units as compared to the low risk units (X2 = 24.6, p < .0001). Regardless of level of stress and duration worn, 85.3% (860/1008) of used vinyl gloves and 18.4% (891/4838) of used latex gloves leaked, p < .001). There were significant differences in leakage rates between the three brands of latex gloves (Brand A, 9.8%; Brand B, 25.1%; Brand C, 30.9%, p < .001). Although latex gloves leaked slightly more frequently as stress level increased, glove material (latex or vinyl) and brand of glove were the most important predictors of leakage.
本研究的目的是比较来自高风险和低风险临床科室的用过的乳胶和乙烯基检查手套的泄漏率。共收集了4838只乳胶检查手套和1008只乙烯基检查手套，并通过美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）的防水泄漏测试进行检测：三种品牌的乳胶手套[品牌A：n = 2920；品牌B：n = 284；品牌C：n = 1634]，以及一种品牌的乙烯基手套（品牌D：n = 1008）。70%的乳胶手套和46.7%的乙烯基手套是从高风险科室收集的。总体而言，高风险和低风险科室的乙烯基手套泄漏率没有显著差异。然而，与低风险科室相比，高风险科室的乳胶手套在压力水平2和3时泄漏的频率明显更高（X2 = 24.6，p < .0001）。无论压力水平和佩戴时间长短，85.3%（860/1008）的用过的乙烯基手套和18.4%（891/4838）的用过的乳胶手套发生了泄漏，p < .001）。三种品牌的乳胶手套之间的泄漏率存在显著差异（品牌A，9.8%；品牌B，25.1%；品牌C，30.9%，p < .001）。尽管随着压力水平的增加，乳胶手套泄漏的频率略有增加，但手套材料（乳胶或乙烯基）和手套品牌是泄漏的最重要预测因素。
