EFFECTS OF A PROTECTIVE FOAM ON SCRUBBING AND GLOVING

被引：14

作者：

LARSON, E

ANDERSON, JK

BAXENDALE, L

BOBO, L

机构：

[1] Georgetown University School of Nursing, Washington, D.C. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

[2] Georgetown University School of Nursing, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

[3] Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

来源：

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL | 1993年 / 21卷 / 06期

关键词：

D O I：

10.1016/0196-6553(93)90386-I

中图分类号：

R1 [预防医学、卫生学];

学科分类号：

1004 ; 120402 ;

摘要：

Objective: To test the effects of a skin protectant - surgical scrub and glove integrity. Design: Forty-nine healthy adult volunteers were assigned (12 subjects per group) to apply a protective foam (DermaMed; Benchmark Enterprises, Salt Lake City, Utah) in conjunction with surgical scrub in one of the following formulations: 70% isopropyl alcohol, a liquid detergent base containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, a liquid detergent base containing 7.5% povidone-iodine, or a nonantimicrobial liquid soap (control). According to a standard protocol, subjects performed a surgical scrub on 3 days (every other day). Foam was applied after surgical scrub on day 1 and before surgical scrub on day 3. No foam was applied on day 2. Subjects were gloved for 2 hours after surgical scrub. Setting: Laboratory setting. Results: On all test days, there were significant differences in bacterial reduction by products (chlorhexidine gluconate or alcohol > povidone-iodine > control). When controlling for baseline counts and products used, there were no significant differences in colony-forming unit counts on hands with or without foam immediately after scrubbing or at 2 hours after scrub on gloved or ungloved hands, nor were there differences in glove leakage rates when foam was on hands. Conclusions: Such protectants can be used without detrimental effects to scrub effectiveness or glove integrity.

引用

页码：297 / 301

页数：5

共 24 条

[1] American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard test method for evaluation for surgical hand scrub formulation, pp. 201-204, (1986)
[2] FDA, Effectiveness testing of a surgical hand scrub (glove juice test), Fed Reg, 39, pp. 33137-33139, (1974)
[3] Axelsson, Erikson, Wrangsjo, Anaphylaxis and angioedema due to rubber allergy in children, Acta Paediatr Scand, 77, pp. 314-316, (1988)
[4] Braude, Gilmour, Shandling, Gold, Intraoperative anaphylaxis to latex, Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 37, pp. 589-592, (1990)
[5] Carrillo, Cuevas, Munoz, Hinojosa, Moneo, Contact urticaria and rhinitis from latex surgical gloves, Contact Dermatitis, 15, pp. 69-72, (1986)
[6] Garred, Vage, Mollnes, Harboe, Latex gloves as a cause of inflammation and eczema, Lancet, 335, (1990)
[7] Gerber, Jorg, Zbinden, Seger, Dangel, Severe intraoperative anaphylaxis to surgical gloves: latex allergy, an unfamiliar condition, Anesthesiology, 71, pp. 800-802, (1989)
[8] Leynadier, Pecquet, Dry, Anaphylaxis to latex during surgery, Anaesthesia, 44, pp. 547-550, (1989)
[9] Pecquet, Leynadier, Dry, Contact urticaria and anaphylaxis to natural latex, J Am Acad Dermatol, 22, pp. 631-633, (1990)
[10] Swartz, Gold, Braude, Dolovich, Gilmour, Shandling, Intraoperative anaphylaxis to latex: an identifiable population at risk, Can J Anesthesiol, 37, (1990)

← 1 2 3 →