Holes in surgical gloves are considered to be an important source of t
ransmission of pathogens between surgeon and patient. Two new glove ho
le detectors have been devised to alert the surgeon to the presence of
holes. These devices have been evaluated using six powder-free and se
ven powdered varieties of surgical gloves that were either dry or expo
sed to hydration. Eight of the 13 surgical gloves hydrated rapidly wit
h water, altering their resistance to the conduction of electricity. B
ecause the Barrier Integrity Monitor(TM) only has a hydration monitor,
68 false positives occurred during the evaluation, indicating to the
surgeon that he/she should change gloves unnecessarily because the glo
ve had no hole. In contrast, the Surgic Alert Monitor(TM) (SAM(TM)) ha
d a hydration alarm as well as a glove hole detection alarm. During th
e 104 tests, the SAM(TM) device showed no false positives. In the test
ing of five of the rapidly hydrating types of surgical gloves, the SAM
(TM) device could not reliably detect holes. On the basis of this stud
y, the SAM(TM) device, in conjunction with gloves that resist hydratio
n, appeared to be a reliable hole detection monitor. (C) 1994 John Wil
ey & Sons, Inc.