SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “GLOVES”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves.

The spread of viral diseases such as HIV has highlighted the importance of protecting medical personnel against contamination from blood. We have assessed the frequency of the perforation of surgical gloves during orthopaedic and trauma surgery and compared the efficiency of single and double gloving. We examined all the gloves used by surgeons for a period of two months. There were 1769 gloves from 349 operations. Perforations occurred in 18.5% of conventional and 5.8% of arthroscopic procedures. The risk of contamination from blood was 13 times higher when using single compared with double gloves. Surprisingly, the combination of two regular gloves was much less efficient than double indicator gloves when comparing the rate of perforation of the inner glove when the outer had been damaged (24% vs 4.9%; p = 0.02). We recommend double gloving in orthopaedic surgery in general and also in long arthroscopic procedures.

Arthroscopy↗

PubMed2001

How often does glove perforation occur in surgery? Comparison between single gloves and a double-gloving system.

BACKGROUND: In surgery, intact gloves protect the surgeon from bloodborne pathogens and the surgical wound from microorganisms on the skin of the surgeon. However, glove perforation is very common, and puncture rates as high as 61% are published in the literature. One objective of this study was to compare puncture rates between a unique double-gloving puncture indication system and single-use gloves, and another was to determine the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during surgery. METHODS: The study material comprised all gloves used in surgical operations at our hospital for a period of 2 months. The analysis was made by the glove type in a prospective and randomized manner. Gloves were tested immediately after the surgical procedure using the approved standardized water-leak method for 2 minutes to detect any holes. The gloves used in this study were either a double-gloving puncture indication system or the standard glove used at our hospital. RESULTS: In 885 operations altogether, 2,462 gloves were tested; 1,020 single gloves, 1,148 double-glove systems, and 294 combination gloves were studied. The overall perforation rate was 192 out of 2,462 gloves (7.80%), and 162 out of 885 operations (18.3%). The detection of perforation during surgery was 28 out of 76 (36.84%) with single gloves, 77 out of 89 with the double-gloving system (86.52%), and 9 out of 27 with combination gloves (33.33%; P <0.001). The inner glove of the double-gloving system was punctured in 6 out of 88 outer glove perforations (6.82%). CONCLUSIONS: In view of the critical importance of safety at work by having a sterile barrier between surgeon and patient, it is very important to use a double-gloving puncture indication system, at least in operations where there is a high risk of glove perforation.

Color↗

PubMed1989

[Glove + glove = protective glove?].

Based on the results of his investigation into the imperviousness of medical gloves the author proved, whether it is possible to obtain more safety by wearing two gloves each hand.

Communicable Disease Control↗

PubMed2004

Randomized controlled trial of glove perforation in single- and double-gloving in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study presented here were to compare the rate of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods, and the time of operation and level of surgeon in episiotomy repair after vaginal delivery. METHOD: A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from the beginning of May to the end of December, 2002 at Ramathibodi Hospital. A comparison of glove perforation between single-gloving and double-gloving methods was performed. Glove perforations were tested by filling each glove with water. Glove perforation rate, position of perforation, time of operation and surgeon level of experience were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty sets of double-gloving method and 150 sets of single-gloving method were evaluated. The glove perforation rates were 4.6 and 18% in double-inner gloves and single-gloves, respectively, with statistical difference (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between glove perforation rates in double-outer gloves (22.6%) and single-gloves (18%). There was matched perforation of the same finger of both outer and inner gloves in 2% of all double-inner gloves. The frequency of glove perforation was classified by the surgeon's level of experience and time of operation was no difference in each level. CONCLUSION: The double-gloving method significantly reduced the risk of exposure of the surgeon's hand to the patient's blood, when compared with the single-gloving method in episiotomy repair. There were no differences in the rate of glove perforations compared to the time of operation and level of surgeon.

Delivery, Obstetric↗

PubMed1993

Surgical glove perforations in otolaryngology: prevention with cut-resistant gloves.

This study examines the role of cut-resistant, "orthopedic-type" gloves in prevention of exposure of surgical personnel to infectious body fluids through surgical glove perforation. The incidence of glove perforations in 12 consecutive cases of intermaxillary fixation (IMF) was studied. Surgeons were double-gloved with standard latex gloves and wore cut-resistant gloves between the outer and inner gloves. As controls, six cadaver heads were wired into IMF with surgeons double-gloving without the cut-resistant glove. The rates of latex glove perforation were then compared between the two groups. Fifty-three percent (32 of 60) of outer latex gloves, but no inner latex gloves (0 of 50) were perforated when surgeons wore cut-resistant gloves. In the control group, 45% of outer gloves (9 of 20) and 15% of inner gloves (3 of 20) were perforated. The difference of inner glove perforations--hence cutaneous exposure--between these two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The use of cut-resistant gloves in addition to double-gloving with latex surgical gloves is recommended for facial plastic and reconstructive procedures with metal implants and major head and neck surgery, because these operations have a high rate of glove perforation. Because some loss of dexterity is noted when cut-resistant gloves are worn, the risk of glove perforation must be weighted against the need for optimal dexterity.

Equipment Design↗

PubMed2001

Glove perforation rate in vascular surgery--a comparison between single and double gloving.

BACKGROUND: In surgery intact gloves act as a sterile barrier between surgeon and patient. The impermeable gloves protect the surgeon from bloodborne pathogens such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. On the other hand, the surgical wound is protected from micro-organisms from the skin of the surgeon. One objective of this study was to compare puncture rates between the double gloving color indication system and single-use gloves and the other to determine the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during the course of vascular surgical operations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study material comprised all gloves used in vascular surgical operations at Satakunta Central Hospital for a period of two months. The analysis was made by the glove type in a prospective and randomised manner. Gloves were tested immediately after the surgical procedure using the approved standardized water-leak method. With this method the glove is filled with water using a special filling tube, and the water-filled glove is then checked for two minutes to detect any holes. The gloves used in this study were either double gloves with indicator, or the standard glove used at our hospital. RESULTS: In 73 operations altogether 200 gloves were tested, half of them were double gloves and half were single gloves. The perforation occurred in the double gloves 3 times and with single gloves 12 times. The overall perforation rate was 15 out of 200 gloves (7.5%). The detection of perforation during surgery was 60%. Most frequently the perforation was located in the second finger of the left hand, 9 out of 15 perforations. CONCLUSION: In view of the critical importance of safety at work both transmitting the pathogens from the skin of the surgeon to the wound and transmitting the bloodborne pathogens from the patient to the surgeon, it is very important to use double gloving at least in operations where there is a high risk of glove perforation.

Blood-Borne Pathogens↗

PubMed2002

Frequency of glove perforation and the protective effect of double gloves in gynecological surgery.

The purposes of this prospective study were to verify the frequency of glove perforation during gynecological operations and to evaluate the efficacy of double gloving in preventing damage to the inner glove. From May 2000 to May 2001, three house staff and 12 residents were asked to place their used gloves in bags labeled with the following information: procedure performed, presence of a recognized glove perforation, and role in operating team (surgeon, first or second assistant, and instrumentalist). All glove sets were tested using the method of water pression. Damaged gloves were excluded from that analysis. In all, 35 and 51 operations were utilized with single and double gloves, respectively. There were 240 single gloves and 792 double gloves tested. Perforation occurred in 10.4% of the single gloves and 9.8% of the outer double gloves. There were no cases of perforation in the inner double gloves. In cases of operating time that lasted more than 2 h, 56% of the surgeries that used single gloves had perforation vs 58.5% of the double gloves. The first assistant had the major risk for glove perforation with the use of single or double gloves. The indicator finger of the non-dominant hand was the major risk for perforation. In conclusion, we recommend double gloving in all gynecological surgery to reduce the risk of contracting blood-borne diseases.

Equipment Failure↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Perforation rate using a single pair of orthopedic gloves vs. a double pair of gloves in obstetric cases.

Our purpose was to determine the perforation rate for a single pair of orthopedic gloves vs. a double pair of regular gloves in obstetric cases. Faculty, residents, medical students, and surgical technicians were assigned randomly to use either double gloves or single orthopedic gloves. After each procedure, the gloves were examined by filling with water, occluding the cuff, and observing for streams of water. The perforation rate for the double gloves (both inner and outer glove at the same location) was 7% (12/169), similar to the 7% (12/172) for single orthopedic gloves (P < 0.9). After adjusting for procedure type there was no association between the type of gloves and perforation rate. Fifty-four percent of all perforations were not recognized intraoperatively. Of those individuals with glove perforations, 4/24 (17%) observed blood on the hand at the end of the procedure. Double-gloved users complained more frequently than single-gloved users of loss of dexterity (77/169, 46%, 95% CI 38-53%) vs. (6/172, 3.5%, 95% CI 0.7-6%) (P < 0.001) and numbness (12/169, 7%, 95% CI 3.2-11%) vs (1/172 0.6%, 95% CI 0.55-1.7%) (P < 0.005). Although the use of a single pair of orthopedic gloves is more costly than a double pair of regular gloves ($78 vs. $15 per box), it is as safe and as effective as a double pair of gloves in maintaining a sterile barrier. The primary advantage of a single pair of orthopedic gloves is that surgical dexterity is minimally compromised when compared to double gloves.

Equipment Failure↗

PubMed1998

Outer gloves in orthopaedic procedures: a polyester/stainless steel wire weave glove liner compared with latex.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of traditional double latex gloving with that of a highly cut-resistant polyester/stainless steel wire weave glove (PSSWWG) over a single latex inner glove for the prevention of perforation of the inner latex glove. DESIGN: The primary surgeon and first assistant were involved in a prospective randomized study. Group I consisted of twenty-five procedures in which double latex gloves were used. Group II consisted of twenty-five procedures in which a PSSWWG liner was worn over an inner latex glove. All inner gloves were tested for perforations; all gloves exchanged that were presumed to have a perforation were noted and also tested. The type and length of the procedure were recorded. The dominant hand was recorded for all participants, along with their comments on the PSSWWG liner's performance. SETTING: Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery. New York. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Major operative cases, November 1996 to February 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inner latex glove perforations. RESULTS: With the use of PSSWWG liners, the percentage of inner gloves found with a perforation dropped from 19 percent in the double latex group to 15 percent in the PSSWWG liner group (not statistically significant, p = 0.4). Two thirds of the perforations were in the primary surgeon's gloves, located in either the index finger or thumb. Nearly 80 percent of all perforations went unrecognized in both groups. Ninety-five percent of all perforations were in gloves that had been in use for more than 120 minutes (statistically significant, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The particular cut-resistant glove studied (Sceptor) did not significantly reduce the rate of inner glove perforations. Other studies with different cut-resistant glove types and protocols have proven the liners effective. We would still recommend using outer cloth or cut-resistant type gloves when bone fragments are being manipulated or when using sharp implants or saws. At a minimum, surgical gloves should be changed every two hours.

Equipment Design↗

PubMed1996

A comparison of the effect of universal use of gloves and gowns with that of glove use alone on acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in a medical intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the use of gloves and gowns compared with that of the use of gloves alone for the prevention of nosocomial transmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. DESIGN: Epidemiologic study and controlled, nonrandomized clinical trial. SETTING: University-affiliated, 900-bed, urban teaching hospital in which vancomycin-resistant enterococci are endemic. PATIENTS: 181 consecutive patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit for 48 hours or more. INTERVENTION: It was determined that all hospital employees would always use gloves and gowns when attending 8 particular beds in the medical intensive care unit and would always use gloves alone when attending 8 others. Compliance with precautions was monitored weekly. Rectal surveillance cultures were taken from patients daily. Cultures of environmental surfaces, such as those of bed rails, bedside tables, and other frequently touched objects in patient rooms and common areas, were taken monthly. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used for molecular epidemiologic typing of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. MEASUREMENTS: The number of patients becoming colonized by vancomycin-resistant enterococci; the number of days to acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci; and other measurements, including nosocomial infections, length of hospital stay, and mortality rates. RESULTS: The 93 patients in glove-and-gown rooms and the 88 patients in glove-only rooms had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. Fifteen (16.1%) patients in the glove-and-gown group and 13 (14.8%) in the glove-only group had vancomycin-resistant enterococci on admission to the medical intensive care unit. Twenty-four (25.8%) patients in the glove-and-gown group and 21 (23.9%) in the glove-only group acquired vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the medical intensive care unit. The mean times to colonization among the patients who became colonized were 8.0 days in the glove-and-gown group and 7.1 days in the glove-only group. None of these comparisons were statistically significant. Risk factors for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci induced length of stay in the medical intensive care unit, use of enteral feeding, and use of sucralfate. Compliance with precautions was 79% in glove-and-gown rooms and 62% in glove-only rooms (P < 0.001). Only 25 of 397 (6.3%) environmental cultures were positive for vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Nineteen types of vancomycin-resistant enterococci were documented by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Universal use of gloves and gowns was no better than universal use of gloves only in preventing rectal colonization by vancomycin-resistant enterococci in a medical intensive care unit of a hospital in which vancomycin-resistant enterococci are endemic. Because the use of gowns and gloves together may be associated with better compliance and may help prevent transmission of other infectious agents, this finding may not be applicable to outbreaks caused by single strains or hospitals in which the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci is low.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

The effect of double gloving on frequency of glove perforations.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this prospective investigation were to determine the frequency of glove perforation during obstetric and gynecologic procedures and to assess the value of double gloving in preventing damage to the inner glove. METHODS: During a 2-month period, surgeons in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology were asked to double glove during all operative procedures. At the conclusion of surgery, the gloves were collected and the surgeons noted the type of procedure and their role as primary surgeon or first assistant. They also indicated whether a perforation was recognized intraoperatively. The gloves were tested for damage by first filling them with air and immersing them in water and then by directly filling them with water. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-one sets of double gloves were evaluated. Of these, 61 sets (14%, 95% confidence interval 10.8-17.2%) had holes in at least one of the four gloves and six sets had more than one perforation, for a total of 67 holes. Fifty-two holes (78%) penetrated only the outer glove and nine (13%) were only in the inner glove. Penetration of both gloves at identical sites occurred in only six of the total glove sets (1.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.3-2.5%). The two most common sites of perforation were the thumb and index finger of the nondominant hand. Glove perforation occurred in 15% of cesarean deliveries and 11% of vaginal deliveries, a nonsignificant difference. In contrast, penetration occurred in 28% of major gynecologic procedures (P less than .05 compared with cesarean or vaginal delivery). Chief and third-year residents were significantly more likely to sustain perforation than were attending physicians or junior residents (P less than .01). Perforation to the gloves of chief residents typically occurred while they were serving as assistants for first- and second-year residents. Third-year residents usually sustained perforations while functioning as primary surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Glove perforations occur with relatively high frequency during pelvic surgery, particularly abdominal procedures. Double gloving offers a measure of protection against damage to the inner glove and may prevent subsequent exposure of the surgeon to blood and other body fluids.

Gloves, Surgical↗

PubMed1999

Double gloving and a glove perforation indication system during the dental treatment of HIV-positive patients: are they necessary?

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of glove perforation when double gloved or single gloved during the routine treatment of HIV-positive patients. In addition, a glove perforation indication system based on a double gloving technique was assessed. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised and open study of glove perforation. METHODS: 138 consecutive HIV-positive patients underwent routine dental treatment by senior dental staff and dental hygienists in a teaching hospital. Staff wore either single gloves (Regent Biogel D or standard surgical gloves) or double gloves (Regent 'Reveal' perforation indication system or standard surgical gloves). A subjective assessment of glove comfort, sensitivity and ease of donning was made using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The incidence of glove perforation/procedure was low, 2.9%. There were no skin penetrating injuries, visible exposure to body fluids or unnoticed perforations. Double gloving was subjectively less comfortable and sensitive than single gloving (P < 0.0001). The glove perforation indication system did not increase the detection of intra-operative perforations. CONCLUSIONS: There is unlikely to be any significant benefit from the use of a double gloving technique or perforation indication system during the routine dental treatment of HIV-positive patients.

Dental Care for Chronically Ill↗

PubMed2001

Intraoperative glove perforation--single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination.

Surgeons have the highest risk of contact with patients' blood and body fluids, and breaches in gloving material may expose operating room staff to risk of infections. This prospective randomised study was done to assess the effectiveness of the practice of double gloving compared with single gloving in decreasing finger contamination during surgery. In 66 consecutive surgical procedures studied, preoperative skin abrasions were detected on the hands of 17.4% of the surgeons. In the double gloving pattern, 32 glove perforations were observed, of which 22 were in the outer glove and 10 in the inner glove. Only four outer glove perforations had matching inner glove perforations, thus indicating that in 82% of cases when the outer glove is perforated the inner glove will protect the surgeon's hand from contamination. The presence of visible skin contamination was also higher in perforation with the single gloving pattern (42.1%) than with the double gloving pattern (22.7%). An overwhelming majority of glove perforations (83.3%) went unnoticed. Double gloving was accepted by the majority of surgeons, especially with repeated use. It is recommended that double gloves are used routinely in all surgical procedures in view of the significantly higher protection it provides.

Equipment Failure↗

PubMed2002

Extractable latex allergens in airborne glove powder and in cut glove pieces.

BACKGROUND: Quantification of natural rubber latex (NRL) allergens of NRL glove extracts has been reported in several studies. Similarly, immunoassay studies reporting the level of NRL aeroallergens in air samples have been published. When studying the NRL allergens of gloves, however, little attention has been focused on identifying the relationship between extractable NRL allergens of medical gloves and NRL aeroallergens in indoor air. OBJECTIVE: In an experimental study we analysed NRL aeroallergens of medical gloves in joint relation to total airborne dust concentration and NRL allergen concentration in gloves. METHODS: NRL aeroallergen level was measured using a chamber setting with 18 lots of powdered medical gloves. In each setting 10 pairs of powdered NRL gloves were swinging in an unventilated chamber (9 m3). Air samples were collected using airflow through Millipore filters (pore size 0.8 microm). The filters were weighed before and after the experiment, and total airborne dust concentration in the chamber was calculated. The filter samples were then extracted and the NRL allergen level measured by IgE ELISA-inhibition assay. Furthermore, cut NRL gloves were extracted and analysed by the same method. Finally, levels of two major NRL allergens, Hev b1 and Hev b 6.02, were measured in three selected NRL glove brands. RESULTS: The NRL aeroallergen level in the chamber air ranged from < 0.9 to 2.9 allergen units (AU)/m3. The total airborne dust concentration in the chamber air remained low with all lots of gloves measured (range < 20 to 80 microg/m3). The NRL allergen level in cut glove extracts varied over 100-fold (< 10 to 1050 AU/mL). Statistically significant correlation between aeroallergen concentration and airborne dust (r = 0.8, P = 0.0015) concentration was found. Moreover, significant correlation between aeroallergen levels and allergen content of cut glove pieces was observed (r = 0.59, P < 0.05). Hev b 1 levels varied from 9 to 25 ng/mL and the levels of Hev b 6.02 from 1720 to 14460 ng/mL in the glove extracts. In the extracts from airborne dust samples, Hev b 6.02 content varied from 61 to 183 ng/m3, whereas Hev b 1 levels were very low (0.4 to 3 ng/m3). CONCLUSION: An elevated NRL aeroallergen level is rather related to a high level of airborne glove powder than to a high concentration of extractable NRL allergen in medical gloves.

Allergens↗

PubMed1991

Efficacy of glove combinations in reducing cell culture infection after glove puncture with needles contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus type 1.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of various latex and treated glove combinations in reducing the frequency of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection of tissue culture cells after puncture by surgical needles contaminated with infectious human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). DESIGN: One, two, or three layers of sterile latex glove material, or two latex layers with intermediate cotton or Kevlar (with or without the virucidal compound nonoxynol-9) were used to cover 24-well cell culture dishes containing MT2 cells in cell culture medium. Surgical needles wet with cell culture medium containing HIV-1 (HTLV IIIA strain) were passed through the glove materials into the culture medium in the wells of the culture dishes. The culture medium in each well was then assayed biweekly for HIV-1 p24 antigen as a test for infection of cells in the well. RESULTS: The rate of HIV-1 infection of cell cultures after glove puncture was greater than 90% with a single latex surgical glove barrier, 23% to 60% with double or triple layers of latex gloves, less than 8% with an intermediate cotton glove impregnated with 4% nonoxynol-9, 6% with an intermediate Kevlar glove, and 0% with an intermediate Kevlar glove impregnated with nonoxynol-9. CONCLUSIONS: An intermediate glove of Kevlar or of Kevlar or cotton impregnated with virucidal compound nonoxynol-9 between standard latex gloves may improve surgical glove safety, compared with latex gloves alone with respect to needlestick transmission of HIV-1. The experimental model used may permit rapid investigation of other glove systems as barriers to the transfer of infectious agents through gloves by needlestick.

Gloves, Surgical↗

PubMed2006

A randomized, controlled, double-blind study of the effect of wearing coated pH 5.5 latex gloves compared with standard powder-free latex gloves on skin pH, transepidermal water loss and skin irritation.

Hand dermatitis is a common occupational disease. Altered skin pH plays an important role in the development of skin irritation. A glove that maintains tight control over skin pH may reduce hand dermatitis in glove users. The purpose of the study was to characterize the effect of glove wearing on skin pH, investigate the impact of study glove on skin pH compared with standard gloves and determine whether wearing study gloves reduced irritation. 20 healthy volunteers enrolled in a 4-week double-blind comparison of study and control gloves and served as their own controls. Gloves were worn 8 hr per day for 5 days per week. Skin pH and transepidermal water loss were measured during and 2 days after the glove-wearing period. The subject and an observer assessed the skin for irritation. The study glove maintained lower skin pH than the control glove (P < 0.05) and trended towards having less irritation. Observers noted increases in dryness and scale in both hands after 4 weeks but significantly less dryness in the study hand at week 4 (P = 0.006). Glove wearing increased skin pH and dryness. The pH 5.5 glove maintained lower skin pH levels than the control glove and may reduce irritation in long-term glove wearers.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Anaesthetists should wear gloves--touch sensitivity is improved with a new type of thin glove.

BACKGROUND: Sterile gloves should be worn for all invasive procedures. However, loss of touch sensitivity when wearing gloves leads to poor compliance among anaesthetists in the UK. Our aim was to investigate whether new surgical glove types, such as extra-thin or latex-free gloves, offer any advantage in touch sensitivity. METHODS: The skin-pressure sensibility threshold of the gloved pulp of the dominant index finger was established in 24 anaesthetists using nine self-made modified von Frey hairs. The range of forces generated by nylon monofilaments was evenly distributed between 0.5 and 17 mN. The gloves tested were latex Biogel standard, latex-free Biogel Neotech, and extra-thin latex Ansell microthin surgical gloves. The different glove types were assessed in a counterbalancing algorhithm, the individual was blinded, and the filaments were applied in random order. RESULTS: The median threshold force to touch was significantly lower for the extra-thin surgical gloves in comparison to the standard latex (P = 0.014) and latex-free gloves (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the standard latex and latex-free gloves (P = 0.166). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that wearing extra-thin surgical gloves offers increased touch sensitivity. This may improve dexterity when carrying out delicate invasive procedures. Latex-free surgical gloves performed similar to standard latex gloves. Our findings should encourage more widespread glove use among anaesthetists.

Anesthesia↗

PubMed1999

Use of gloves and prevalence of glove-related reactions in a sample of general dental practitioners in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency of the use of gloves and to assess the prevalence of glove-related symptoms in a sample of Italian dentists with a high occupational exposure to latex gloves. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A 31-question instrument was mailed to all dentists (n = 550) practicing in the town of Bologna during 1994 to determine the type of procedures for which gloves were worn by dentists and the prevalence of self-reported glove-related symptoms. RESULTS: Of the dentists who replied to the items (n = 160), 94% reported that they usually wear nonsterile latex examination gloves; and 46% reported that they wear surgical gloves, even if not exclusively. About 98% reported changing gloves after contact with each patient, and 14% reported using disinfectants to treat examination gloves. Of the 106 respondents claiming to use examination gloves for surgical activities, 79 (74%) reported wearing them for extractions. Sterile surgical gloves were reported to be mostly worn for implant placement (47%) and periodontal surgery (42%). There were 46 (29%) responses indicating glove-related problems; of those subjects, 14 (30%) reported having other allergies. CONCLUSION: The use of gloves is common in the sample of Italian dentists, and the choice between nonsterile examination gloves and sterile surgical gloves seems to be made appropriately.

Dentistry↗