The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of new powder-free commercially available synthetic examination gloves to that of commercially available powder-free latex examination gloves. The synthetic gloves were significantly thinner than the latex gloves. Despite the decreased thickness, all three nitrile gloves, as well as the polyvinyl chloride glove, exhibited a greater resistance to glove puncture. The glove donning forces varied considerably among all gloves, and wet donning forces were greater than dry donning forces. Under dry conditions, the donning forces for the synthetic gloves were less than or equal to the forces for the latex gloves. Because of their increased puncture resistance and similar donning forces, synthetic gloves are a safe alternative to latex examination gloves.
The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance to viral penetration of powder-free synthetic examination gloves with powder-free latex examination gloves commonly used in hospitals. Because these gloves had no holes, this study examined viral penetration through a membrane. Using a standard bacteriophage penetration model, no bacteriophage penetration was detected through the membrane for any of the gloves tested. The new powder-free nitrile and polyvinyl chloride synthetic examination gloves provided comparable resistance to viral penetration as did the powder-free latex examination gloves.
The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of commercially available orthopedic gloves to that of a single surgical glove, as well as a double glove system. The orthopedic gloves were found to be thicker than the single surgical glove. This increased thickness of the orthopedic glove was associated with a greater resistance to glove puncture. The thickest orthopedic gloves also had reduced tactile sensitivity when compared to the single surgical glove. In addition, the glove donning forces and glove hydration rates varied considerably. These latter biomechanical performance parameters were not significantly related to glove thickness. The double glove systems tested in this study had similar performance characteristics in regard to many of the orthopedic gloves. The glove donning forces for the double glove systems were the lowest of the gloves tested. In addition, the double glove systems displayed the greatest resistance to glove hydration of the gloves tested. Their performance in the glove hydration tests and the force required to don the double glove systems were much more desirable than any of the orthopedic gloves. The results of this study indicate that the double glove systems may provide a desirable alternative to the use of the single orthopedic gloves.
There are a wide variety of latex examination gloves now available for use by health care providers. A prospective randomized trial was completed to quantify the forces required to don a sample of seven cornstarch-lubricated gloves and 13 powder-free latex examination gloves. The data collected was analyzed by a 20 x 2 general factorial ANOVA, as well as two 1-way ANOVAs using a least significance difference post hoc test. Some powder-free gloves can be easily donned with dry or wet hands without tearing with forces comparable to those encountered with powdered gloves. With the advent of these powder-free examination gloves, powdered gloves can now be abandoned, protecting health professionals and patients from the dangers of absorbable dusting powders. Despite the dangers of the absorbable dusting powders and the Food and Drug Administration's requirement for labeling examination glove boxes, some manufacturers of powdered examination gloves do not appropriately label their boxes with a warning to the health professional and patient of the presence of powder.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.