Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-16T16:52:25.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gown-Glove Interface: A Possible Solution to the Danger Zone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Kenneth K. Meyer  and
William C. Beck
Kenneth K. Meyer*
Affiliation:
Guthrie Foundation for Medical Research Sayre, Pennsylvania
William C. Beck
Affiliation:
Guthrie Foundation for Medical Research Sayre, Pennsylvania
*
Guthrie Foundation for Medical Research, Guthrie Square, Sayre, PA 18840
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The gown-glove interface is the weakest point in the present barrier system of gown and glove protection for the surgeon and other healthcare professionals who come into direct contact with body liquids. Try it yourself: put on a fluid-resistant gown and surgical gloves. See that the glove cuff is well proximal to the stockinette. Hold your wrist and forearm for a moment under running water. Wait a minute to see if your forearm is wet. A wet forearm during surgery would be a bloodied one. We propose a gown redesign that creates a dart at the terminal forearm, sealed by a liquid-proof method, and then similarly sealing the proximal end of the glove to the sleeve.

Type
Product Commentary
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 16 , Issue 8 , August 1995 , pp. 488 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Smith, JW, Nichols, RL. Barrier efficacy of surgical gowns. Arch Surg 1991;126:753–756.Google Scholar
2. Quebbman, EJ, Telford, GL. Hubbard, S, et al. In-use evaluation of surgical gowns. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:369–374.Google Scholar
3. Beck, WC, Collette, TS. False faith in the surgeon's gown and drape. Am J Surg 1952;82:125–126.Google Scholar
4. Beck, WC. The hole in the surgical glove: a change in attitude. Bull Am Col Surg 1989;74:15–16.Google Scholar
5. McCullough, EA. Methods for determining the barrier efficacy of surgical gowns. Am ] Infect Control 1993;21:368–374.Google Scholar
6. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM Standard D-5151. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM;1983:119–187.Google Scholar
7. Laufman, H, Eudy, WW, Vandermost, AM, et al. Strike-through of moist contamination by woven and non-woven materials. Ann Surg 1965;60:16–20.Google Scholar
8. Hubbard, MS, Wadsworth, K, Telford, GL, et al. Reducing blood contamination and injury in the OR. A study of the effectiveness of protective garments and OR procedures. AORNJ 1992;55:194–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Appel, DA, Quebbeman, EJ, Telford, GL. In-use comparison of a line of disposable and reusable surgical gowns. Presented at the ACS/CDC Conference on Protection from Bloodborne Pathogens; February 13-15, 1994; Atlanta, GA. In: J Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Abstract. In press.Google Scholar