Ease of donning commercially available powder-free surgical gloves

A laboratory-based study to assess the performance of surgical gloves

The inherent tear resistance and elasticity of latex and the touch sensitivity it provides has made it the traditional material of choice for surgical gloves, protecting both health care workers and patients from the transmission of bloodborne infections. Although increased incidence of latex allergy has led to increased use of nonlatex surgical gloves, the effectiveness of these gloves as a barrier to infection has not been examined thoroughly. This laboratory-based study compared the performance of latex and nonlatex surgical gloves in a simulated stress protocol. The propensity of surgical gloves to fail was dependent on glove material, manufacturer, and stress. Nonlatex neoprene and nitrile gloves were comparable to latex and can provide a good alternative to latex for allergic patients and health care workers. In this study, isoprene was found to be inferior to latex and other nonlatex materials. The presence or absence of glove powder had no significant influence on the probability of glove failure.

The changing face of hand protection

Perioperative nurses are empowered to act as patient advocates. As such, it is their responsibility to critically evaluate all products used in the surgical environment, including gloves. A basic understanding of the history of surgical gloves, health issues associated with their use, glove materials, and the essential properties of hand scrubs can help perioperative nurses choose appropriate products. This article explores these issues so that nurses and other health care workers can develop a framework for making informed decisions based on clinical reasoning.

Biomechanical performance of latex and non-latex double-glove systems

The purpose of this study was to evaluate ten commercially available latex, powder-free surgical gloves and four commercially available non-latex, powder-free surgical gloves using standardized, reproducible biomechanical parameters that included glove thickness, puncture resistance, and glove donning force. For all gloves tested, with one exception (Neolontrade mark PF), puncture resistance increased for double-gloves as compared to single-gloves. In addition, single-glove thickness was not a reliable determinant of puncture resistance for either latex or non-latex gloves. For the latex gloves, the Ultrafree double and single-gloves exhibited the highest puncture resistance. The glove donning forces for the Biogeltrade mark M and Biogel Sensortrade mark single-gloves were the lowest. In contrast, the Biogel Revealtrade mark and Encoretrade mark Ultra-Thick exhibited the lowest double-glove donning forces. On the basis of these performance tests of latex gloves, the surgeon should consider the Biogel Reveal as well as the Ultrafree gloves for their latex double-glove system. For the non-latex gloves, the Pure Advantage Nitriletrade mark glove had the highest puncture resistance for one layer and two layers of glove material. The thin Pure Advantage Nitrile glove was the most resistant to glove puncture. The Pure Advantage Nitrile glove had low glove donning forces for both single-glove donning configurations and double-glove donning configurations. Consequently, we recommend the Pure Advantage Nitrile glove as the powder-free, non-latex, double-glove system.

A global inventory of hospitals using powder-free gloves: a search for principled medical leadership

Scientific experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated that cornstarch on surgical and examination gloves promotes disease by acting as a reactive foreign body in tissue and serving as a vector for latex allergy. Consequently, hospitals have selected an innovative glove selection program utilizing only powder-free gloves. Healthcare workers in emergency medical systems are now wearing powder-free, latex-free gloves to care for the growing number of patients sensitized to latex. A global Internet search has now identified 70 hospitals in the United States and three hospitals in Europe that use only powder-free gloves.

Biomechanical performance of powder-free examination gloves

Biomechanical performance studies were undertaken for powder-free, latex and nitrile examination gloves. Using standardized tests, examination glove performance was judged by measuring glove thickness, glove puncture force, glove tape adhesion force, glove donning force, glove stiffness, and immediate unrecovered stretch. Even though the nitrile examination gloves were thinner than the latex examination gloves, they exhibited a greater puncture resistance. In addition, tape adherence to the N-Dex nitrile glove was the lowest. Moreover, measurements of the handling characteristics of the nitrile examination gloves demonstrated that they are an acceptable alternative to latex examination gloves. While these biomechanical studies demonstrate the superiority of the nitrile examination gloves, clinical glove evaluation is still needed to determine their performance in the health care setting.

The use of gloves in Australian dermatological practice

Dermatologists use gloves as a major tool in universal precautions to prevent transmission of infections particularly human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis. We need to know how much protection is conferred by gloves and what problems are associated with glove use. This paper looks at these issues and reports the results of a survey on glove use by Australian dermatologists. The survey found a lack of awareness regarding gloves as a protective measure, suggesting the need to improve knowledge in this area so that realistic precautions can be adopted. Dermatologists have a high rate of glove use and reactions to gloves were noted by 13% of respondents. The authors recommend the use of non-powdered, low-allergen latex gloves. Handwashing prior to using non-powdered latex gloves needs further investigation. Handwashing after wearing latex gloves may decrease sensitization risk.