The mechanical and microbiological integrity of surgical gloves.
BACKGROUND
Several manufacturers supply surgical gloves that have been individually tested (IT) for leaks. Other manufacturers supply gloves in which sample gloves from each batch are tested for leaks (batch tested: BT). The latter brands may be rejected by surgeons because of presumed increased risk of wound infection and staff exposure to patient pathogens. The influence of differences between glove brands on performance in surgery has not been extensively studied. The aims of the present study were to test the mechanical and microbiological integrity of IT compared to BT gloves.


METHODS
A total of 110 unused gloves from each of an IT and a BT brand were tested for leaks, first, by observation of water-jets from water-filled gloves and second, by measuring electrical resistance between inside and outside the glove surfaces, to give a baseline measure. A total of 304 IT and 280 BT gloves were then similarly leak-tested after 98 clean surgical procedures. The hands and gloves of scrub team members were cultured postsurgery.


RESULTS
A total of 1/110 BT and 0/110 IT unused gloves contained leaks (NS, Fisher's exact test). Operative perforation rates were lower for BT compared with IT (8/280 cf. 22/304; P < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). There was no bias in types of operations or scrub team members to account for the difference. Growth of normal skin flora was found on virtually every wearer's hands post-operatively. Similar bacteria were frequently cultured from the outside of gloves at the conclusion of surgery (111/152 pairs IT cf. 122/140 pairs BT; P < 0.01, Fisher's exact test).


CONCLUSIONS
This study provides evidence that the clinical performance of BT gloves is no different to IT gloves. There was no significant difference in mechanical leak rates for unused gloves. Paradoxically, although IT gloves were more likely to show macro-perforations after surgery, the incidence of contamination on the surface of BT gloves was greater, possibly reflecting a qualitative difference in glove material. This study suggests that both types of gloves develop microporosity during use, which may allow transfer of bacteria from the surgeon's skin to the surface of the glove.
Jamal
Ala
A
Department of Surgery, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Wilkinson
Stephen
S
D018562:Disease Transmission, Infectious / Q000517:prevention & control*; D004548:Elasticity; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005932:Gloves, Surgical / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000382:microbiology*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D016062:Porosity; D011786:Quality Control; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013514:Surgical Procedures, Operative / Q000009:adverse effects*; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000209:etiology* / Q000382:microbiology*; D013718:Tensile Strength