Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:14:43.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of surgical gowns made with barrier cloth on bacterial dispersal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Julie Matthews ,
K. Slater  and
S. W. B. Newsom
Julie Matthews
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
K. Slater
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
S. W. B. Newsom*
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
*
Dr S. W. B. Newsom, Department of Microbiology, Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, Cambridge CB3 8RE.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A dispersal chamber (body box) technique has been used to compare bacterial dispersal from the skin of subjects carrying out a stepping test under controlled conditions while wearing four differing garment systems namely:

(a) basic underwear, cotton ‘blues’ (standard pyjama style jacket and trousers for men or dress for women), ankle socks, boots for men and shoes for women, mask and theatre hat; (b) the basic set covered with a cotton gown; (c) the basic set covered by a gown with a front made from GORE-TEX fabric in which an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane is sandwiched between layers of woven or knitted polyester; (d) the basic set covered with a fully enclosed suit of the same fabric.

A slit sampler was used to measure the number of bacteria liberated in a downward current of air. Six subjects (three female and three male) were studied. Males liberated more bacteria. Covering the ‘blues’ with a cotton gown increased the bacterial count; a gown of the new material reduced the increase by 50%, and the suit cut the dispersal to virtually zero.

Preliminary work suggests that GORE-TEX garments survive laundering better than cotton, and may be cost-effective, but are not yet as comfortable. Research is presently in progress to improve this aspect.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , August 1985 , pp. 123 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

REFERENCES

Bernard, H. R. (1982). Experiences with reusable barrier materials 1976–90. American College of Surgeons Bulletin. 05, pp. 18–22.Google Scholar
Bethune, D. W., Blowers, R., Parker, M. & Pask, S. A. (1965). Dispersal of Staphylococcus aureus by patients and surgical staff. Lancet i, 480–483.Google Scholar
Blowers, R. & McCluskey, M. (1965). Design of operating room dress for surgeons. Lancet ii, 681–683.Google Scholar
Goldthorp, S. L. (1981). The laboratory assessment of a new fabric for reducing bacterial penetration of operating theatre apparel. British Journal of Surgery 68, 569–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laufman, H. (1982). Surgical barrier materials, product promotion versus controlled evidence. American College of Surgeons Bulletin. 05, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
Moylan, J. A. (1982). Clinical evaluation of gown and drape barrier performance. American College of Surgeons Bulletin. 05, pp. 8–12.Google Scholar
Slater, K. & Slater, Hilary D. (1985). The design of operating theatre gowns for comfort in surgical procedures. Clothing Institute Journal (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
Whyte, W., Bailey, P. V., Hamblen, D. L., Fisher, W. D. & Kelly, I. G. (1983). A bacterially occlusive clothing system for use in the operating room. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 65, 502–506.Google Scholar
Whyte, W., Vesley, D. & Hodgson, R. (1976). Bacterial dispersion in relation to operating room clothing Journal of Hygiene 76, 367–378.Google Scholar