Antibacterial activity of a sterile antimicrobial polyisoprene surgical glove against transient flora following a 2-hours simulated use

BMC Surgery

Ojan Assadian⁴  Michael Schäffer²  Peter Starzengruber¹  Julian-Camill Harnoss⁵  Pui Fong Chee⁶  Bit New Yee⁶  Rupert Schuster³  Johannes Leitgeb³ 

[1] Department for Hospital Hygiene, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, A-1090, Austria;Department for General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Böheimstrasse 37, Stuttgart, D-70199, Germany;Department for Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, A-1090, Austria;Institute for Skin Integrity and Infection Prevention, School of Human & Health Sciences, R1/29 Ramsden Building, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK;Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, Heidelberg, D-69120, Germany;Science & Technology Innovation Centre, Ansell Shah Alam, Shah Alam, 40000, Selangor, Malaysia

关键词: Suppression;    Antibacterial efficacy;    Transient flora;    Surgical glove;    Antimicrobial;   

Others  :  1217306
DOI  :  10.1186/s12893-015-0058-5

 received in 2013-09-23, accepted in 2015-05-25,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

A surgical glove will protect surgeons and patients only if the glove’s integrity remains intact. However, several studies have demonstrated that undetected micro-perforations of surgical gloves are common. Because of the possibility of surgical glove puncture, an antimicrobial surgical glove was developed. The aim of this laboratory based experimental study was to assess the antibacterial efficacy of the interior chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG)-coat of an antimicrobial synthetic polyisoprene surgical glove by using a standardized microbiological challenge.

Methods

Sixteen healthy adult participants donned one antimicrobial surgical glove and one non-antimicrobial surgical glove randomly allocated to their dominant and non-dominant hand following a crossover design. During a 2-h wear time, participants performed standardized finger and hand movements. Thereafter, the interior surface of excised fingers of the removed gloves was challenged with 8.00 log ₁₀cfu/mL S. aureus (ATCC 6538) or K. pneumoniae (ATCC 4352), respectively. The main outcome measure was the viable mean log ₁₀cfu counts of the two glove groups after 5 min contact with the interior glove’s surface.

Results

When comparing an antimicrobial glove against an untreated reference glove after 2-h simulated use wear-time, a mean reduction factor of 6.24 log ₁₀(S. aureus) and 6.22 log ₁₀(K. pneumoniae) was achieved after 5 min contact.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that wearing antibacterial gloves on hands does not negatively impact their antibacterial activity after 2-h of wear. This may have a potential benefit for patient safety in case of glove puncture during surgical procedures.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Leitgeb et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hübner NO, Goerdt AM, Stanislawski N, Assadian O, Heidecke CD, Kramer A. Bacterial migration through punctured surgical gloves under real surgical conditions. BMC Infect Dis. 2010; 10:192. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Harnoss J, Partecke LI, Heidecke CD, Huebner NO, Kramer A, Assadian O. Concentration of bacteria passing through puncture holes in surgical gloves. Am J Infect Control. 2010; 38:154-158.
• [3]Misteli H, Weber WP, Reck S, Rosenthal R, Zwahlen M, Fueglistaler P et al.. Surgical glove perforation and the risk of surgical site infection. Arch Surg. 2009; 144:553-558.
• [4]Eklund AM, Ojajarvi J, Laitinen K, Valtonen M, Werkkala KA. Glove punctures and postoperative skin flora of hands in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74:149-153.
• [5]Partecke LI, Goerdt AM, Langner I, Jaeger B, Assadian O, Heidecke CD et al.. Incidence of microperforation for surgical gloves depends on duration of wear. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009; 30:409-414.
• [6]Laine T, Kaipia A, Santavirta J, Aarnio P. Glove perforations in open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery: the feasibility of double gloving. Scand J Surg. 2004; 93:73-76.
• [7]Brough SJ, Hunt TM, Barrie WW. Surgical glove perforations. Br J Surg. 1988; 75:317.
• [8]Kojima Y, Ohashi M. Unnoticed glove perforation during thoracoscopic and open thoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 80:1078-1080.
• [9]Pitten FA, Herdemann G, Kramer A. The integrity of latex gloves in clinical dental practice. Infection. 2000; 28:388-392.
• [10]Manjunath AP, Shepherd JH, Barton DP, Bridges JE, Ind TE. Glove perforations during open surgery for gynaecological malignancies. BJOG. 2008; 115:1015-1019.
• [11]Wright JG, McGeer AJ, Chyatte D, Ransohoff DF. Exposure rates to patients' blood for surgical personnel. Surgery. 1993; 114:897-901.
• [12]Pietrabissa A, Merigliano S, Montorsi M, Poggioli G, Stella M, Borzomati D et al.. Reducing the occupational risk of infections for the surgeon: multicentric national survey on more than 15,000 surgical procedures. World J Surg. 1997; 21:573-578.
• [13]Adesunkanmi AK, Badmus TA, Ogunlusi JO. Accidental injuries and cutaneous contaminations during general surgical operations in a Nigerian teaching hospital. East Afr Med J. 2003; 80:227-234.
• [14]Carlton JE, Dodson TB, Cleveland JL, Lockwood SA. Percutaneous injuries during oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55:553-556.
• [15]Myers DJ, Epling C, Dement J, Hunt D. Risk of sharp device-related blood and body fluid exposure in operating rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29:1139-1148.
• [16]Daeschlein G, Kramer A, Arnold A, Ladwig A, Seabrook GR, Edmiston CE. Evaluation of an innovative antimicrobial surgical glove technology to reduce the risk of microbial passage following intraoperative perforation. Am J Infect Control. 2011; 39:98-103.
• [17]Assadian O, Kramer A, Ouriel K, Suchomel M, McLaws ML, Rottman M et al.. Suppression of surgeons’ bacterial hand flora during surgical procedures using a new antimicrobial surgical glove. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014; 15:43-49.
• [18]Brook M: The science of mental fitness. [http://www.damninteresting.com/the-science-of-mental-fitness/]; posted 13 November 2012. Accessed on 12 December 2012.
• [19]Dosis A, Aggarwal R, Bello F, Moorthy K, Munz Y, Gillies D et al.. Synchronized video and motion analysis for the assessment of procedures in the operating theater. Arch Surg. 2005; 140:293-299.
• [20]Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K, Milland T, Papasavas P, Dosis A et al.. An evaluation of the feasibility, validity, and reliability of laparoscopic skills assessment in the operating room. Ann Surg. 2007; 245:992-999.
• [21]E1054 – Standard Test Methods for Evaluation of Inactivators of Antimicrobial Agents. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2013.
• [22]Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Andrus ML, Dudeck MA, Pollock DA, Horan TC. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006 through 2007, issued November 2008. Am J Infect Control. 2008; 36:609-626.