Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T23:08:49.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Glove Combinations in Reducing Cell Culture Infection After Glove Puncture With Needles Contaminated With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Gregory K. Johnson ,
Timothy Nolan ,
Hank C. Wuh  and
William S. Robinson
Gregory K. Johnson
Affiliation:
Divisions of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
Timothy Nolan
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
Hank C. Wuh
Affiliation:
Divisions of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
William S. Robinson*
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
*
Stanford University School of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Room S156, Stanford, CA 94305-5107
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To study the effect of various latex and treated glove combinations in reducing the frequency of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection of tissue culture cells after puncture by surgical needles contaminated with infectious human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV 1).

Design:

One, two, or three layers of sterile latex glove material, or two latex layers with intermediate cotton or Kevlar (with or without the virucidal compound nonoxynol-9) were used to cover 24-well cell culture dishes containing MT2 cells in cell culture medium. Surgical needles wet with cell culture medium containing HIV- 1 (HTLV IIIA strain) were passed through the glove materials into the culture medium in the wells of the culture dishes. The culture medium in each well was then assayed biweekly for HIV-1 p24 antigen as a test for infection of cells in the well.

Results:

The rate of HIV-1 infection of cell cultures after glove puncture was greater than 90% with a single latex surgical glove barrier, 23% to 60% with double or triple layers of latex gloves, less than 8% with an intermediate cotton glove impregnated with 4% nonoxynol-9, 6% with an intermediate Kevlar glove, and 0% with an intermediate Kevlar glove impregnated with non-oxynol-9.

Conclusions:

An intermediate glove of Kevlar or of Kevlar or cotton impregnated with virucidal compound nonoxynol-9 between standard latex gloves may improve surgical glove safety, compared with latex gloves alone with respect to needlestick transmission of HIV 1. The experimental model used may permit rapid investigation of other glove systems as barriers to the transfer of infectious agents through gloves by needlestick. (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:435-438.)

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 12 , Issue 7 , July 1991 , pp. 435 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1991

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. Alter, HJ, Seeff, LB, Kaplan, PM, et al. Type B hepatitis: the infectivity of blood positive for e antigen and DNA polymerase after accidental needlestick exposure. N Engl J Med. 1976;295:909–913.Google Scholar
2. Grady, GE Relation of e antigen to infectivity of HBsAg-positive inoculations among medical personnel. Lancet. 1976;ii:492–494.Google Scholar
3. McCray, E, Cooperative Needlestick Surveillance Group. Occupational risk of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome among health care workers. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:1127–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gerberding, JL, Bryant-IeBlanc, CE, Nelson, K, et al. Risk of transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus, cytomegalovirus, and hepatitis B virus to health care workers exposed to patients with AIDS and AIDS-related conditions. J Infect Dis. 1988;156:1–8.10.1093/infdis/156.1.1Google Scholar
5. Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Brand-Elnaggar, J, et al. Rates of needlestick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:284–288.Google Scholar
6. Johnson, GK, Robinson, WS. Human immunodeficiency virus-l (HIV-1) in vapors of surgical power instruments. J Med Virol. 1991;33:47–50.Google Scholar
7. Dalgleish, AG, Malkovsky, M. Surgical gloves as a mechanical barrier against human immunodeficiency virus. Br J Surg. 1988;75:171–172.Google Scholar
8. Rietmeijer, CAM, Krebs, JW, Feorino, PM, Judson, FN. Condoms as physical and chemical barriers against human immunodeficiencyvirus. JAMA. 1988;259:1851–1853.10.1001/jama.1988.03720120055036Google Scholar
9. Hicks, DR, Martin, LS, Getchell, JP, et al. Inactivation of HIV-III/LAV-infected cultures of normal human lynmphocytes by non-oxynol-9 in vitro. Lancet. 1985;ii:1422–1423.Google Scholar
10. Malkovsky, M, Newell, A, Dalgleish, AG. Inactivation of HIV by nonoxynol-9. Lancet. 1988;i:641.Google Scholar
11. Lowenfels, AB, Wormser, GP, Rajesh, J. Frequency of puncture injuries in surgeons and estimated risks of HIV infection. Arch Surg. 1989;24:1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. McLeod, GC. Needlestick injuries at operations for trauma: are surgical gloves an effective barrier? J Bone Joint Surg. 1989;71-B:489–491.10.1302/0301-620X.71B3.2722946CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Sanders, RW, Fortin, PT, Ross, E, Helfet, DL. Surgical glove perforations: the efficacy of cloth versus latex gloves. J Bone Joint surg. 1990;72-A:914.Google Scholar
14. Hussain, SA, Latif, AB, Chaudhary, AA. Risks of surgeons: a survey of accidental injuries during operations. Br J Surg. 1988;75:314–316.10.1002/bjs.1800750407Google Scholar
15. Becker, CE, Cone, JE, Gerberding, J. Occupational infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), risks and risk reduction. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:653–656.Google Scholar
16. Weiss, SH, Saxinger, WC, Rechtman, D, et al. HTLV-III infection among health care workers, association with needlestick injuries. JAMA. 1985;254:2089–2093.Google Scholar
17. Jagger, J, Pearson, RD, Brand, JJ. Avoiding the hazards of sharp instruments. Lancet. 1986;i:1274.10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91412-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar