Evaluation of the quality of surgical gloves among four different manufactures

7Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the quality of four different brands of surgical gloves in terms of the perforation rate, ventilation, fitness, allergic reaction, elasticity, thickness, powder, and satisfaction. Gloves of four different manufactures which were used by various medical centres were distributed to participants according to a computer-generated randomization table. A structured questionnaire was self-administered by volunteers immediately after the surgical procedure to gather the information from participants, including the demographic data, allergy history, length of use, and variables of quality measures. Two brands, A and D, were significantly inferior to the best manufacture among the four, B, in terms of the ventilation, elasticity, and thickness, odds ratios ranging from 6 to 24, p<0.05. For the amount of corn starch powder and satisfaction, all three other brands were inferior to brand B, odds ratios ranging from 6 to 44, p<0.05. Gloves worn longer than 2 hours had a slightly higher perforation rate post procedures (11.5% vs. 2.1%, p=0.048). The rate of latex allergic reaction was not significantly different between surgeons (8.3%) and the others (6.7%). No difference of the allergic reaction rate was found between subjects with allergy history (7.7%) and those without the history (7.5%). The quality of surgical gloves differs from brand to brand. The government and institutions should take the responsibility of monitoring the quality of surgical gloves in order to provide a safer and more comfortable environment for the surgical personnel and patients. Copyright (C) 1999 British Occupational Hygiene Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hwang, K. L., Kou, S. J., Lu, Y. M., & Yang, N. C. (1999). Evaluation of the quality of surgical gloves among four different manufactures. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 43(4), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4878(99)00024-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free