BACKGROUND: Needlestick injuries are always associated with a risk of infection, because these types of punctures may expose healthcare workers to a patient's blood and/or body fluids. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 4 different types of surgical gloves for preventing exposure to blood as a result of needlestick injury. METHODS: For simulation of needlestick injury, a circular sample of pork skin was tightened onto a bracket, and a single finger from a medical glove was stretched over the sample. First, a powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating was used to test blood contact. Second, a glove with a patented puncture indication system was used to test blood contact with a double-gloved hand. Third, 2 powder-free latex medical gloves of the same size and hand were combined for double gloving, again to test blood contact. Finally, we tested a glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside. The punctures were carried out using diverse sharp surgical devices that were contaminated with (99)Tc-marked blood. The amount of blood contact was determined from the transmitted radioactivity. RESULTS: For the powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating, a mean volume of 0.048 microL of blood (standard error of the mean [SEM], 0.077 microL) was transferred in punctures with an automated lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. For the glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside, the mean volume of blood transferred was 0.030 microL (SEM, 0.0056 microL) with a single glove and was 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) with 2 gloves. For the glove with the patented puncture indication system, a mean volume of 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) of blood was transferred. CONCLUSIONS: Double gloving or the use of a glove with disinfectant can result in a decrease in the volume of blood transferred. Therefore, the use of either of these gloving systems could help to minimize the risk of bloodborne infections for medical staff.
BACKGROUND:Needlestick injuries are always associated with a risk of infection, because these types of punctures may expose healthcare workers to a patient's blood and/or body fluids. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 4 different types of surgical gloves for preventing exposure to blood as a result of needlestick injury. METHODS: For simulation of needlestick injury, a circular sample of pork skin was tightened onto a bracket, and a single finger from a medical glove was stretched over the sample. First, a powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating was used to test blood contact. Second, a glove with a patented puncture indication system was used to test blood contact with a double-gloved hand. Third, 2 powder-free latex medical gloves of the same size and hand were combined for double gloving, again to test blood contact. Finally, we tested a glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside. The punctures were carried out using diverse sharp surgical devices that were contaminated with (99)Tc-marked blood. The amount of blood contact was determined from the transmitted radioactivity. RESULTS: For the powder-free surgical glove with a gel coating, a mean volume of 0.048 microL of blood (standard error of the mean [SEM], 0.077 microL) was transferred in punctures with an automated lancet at a depth of 2.4 mm through 1 layer of latex. For the glove with an integrated disinfectant on the inside, the mean volume of blood transferred was 0.030 microL (SEM, 0.0056 microL) with a single glove and was 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) with 2 gloves. For the glove with the patented puncture indication system, a mean volume of 0.024 microL (SEM, 0.003 microL) of blood was transferred. CONCLUSIONS: Double gloving or the use of a glove with disinfectant can result in a decrease in the volume of blood transferred. Therefore, the use of either of these gloving systems could help to minimize the risk of bloodborne infections for medical staff.