Experience

best-in-class allergy PROTECTION

Type I allergies caused by natural rubber latex (NRL) and Type IV allergies caused by chemicals pose a significant risk for both healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients. Non-latex gloves offer protection against Type I latex allergy, but not against Type IV chemicals allergies.
Only 100% accelerator-free non-latex gloves adequately protect against both latex (Type I) and chemical (Type IV) allergies.

The ‘best-in-class protection’ sample box contains highly comfortable gloves that protect against both latex Type I and chemical Type IV allergies.

Request the
ALLERGY PROTECTION
sample box

 

Want to know more about allergies?

 

The fight against latex TYPE I allergy

  • caused by natural rubber latex (NRL) proteins
  • immediate allergic reaction after exposure
  • severity from mild discomfort to life threatening
  • can be prevented by using non-latex gloves

Many hospitals are banning all NRL materials from the O.R.

If you, as a healthcare worker (HCW) are well-protected, then so are your patients. That is why many hospitals are already banning all NRL materials from their O.R. environments. All? What about the one item that actually touches the patient, and which is in constant contact with the HCWs skin?

At Asklepios Kinderklinik Sankt Augustin the quality of their patient care is at the heart of everything they do. That is why their safety concept is to eliminate the element of human error wherever possible. Being well-aware of the vulnerability of children, the only acceptable approach towards latex surgical gloves is to completely ban them from their paediatric hospital.

Chemical TYPE IV allergies are on the rise

  • caused by chemical residual in NRL and non-latex gloves
  • delayed allergic reaction after exposure
  • severity from mild discomfort to significant occupational disability for HCWs
  • can be prevented by using 100% accelerator-free gloves

Type IV chemical allergies can cause significant occupational disability and are potentially career threatening to HCWs, as happened to Dr. Boes, Great Falls, Montana, USA. Watch his testimonial:

Despite the use of non-latex surgical gloves, Type IV allergies and sensitivities causing skin-related reactions are on the rise. These may be caused by DPG (diphenylguanidine) or other chemical accelerators used in the manufacture of some non-latex gloves. This was the case for a Swedish hospital where 13% of surgical nurses displayed reactions to DPG after moving to non-latex gloves.1,2

YOU HAVE OPTIONS!

1 For advanced protection, use 100% DPG free polyisoprene (PI) gloves

Where PI gloves are preferred, especially for their ‘more-comfortable-than-latex’ feel, insist on Ansell's 100% DPG-Free PI gloves to ensure optimum protection without compromise.

BE AWARE
Some gloves containing DPG in their formulation claim to be DPG-Free when their content is below the detectable levels of the testing method. Gloves with DPG, even below detectable levels, may elicit an allergic response. Rest assured, Ansell's non-latex gloves are 100% DPG-free. 

 

2 For total peace of mind, use 100% chemical accelerator-free gloves

Our R&D team have developed a neoprene range that is completely free from chemical accelerators. This, and their trusted strength and durability, make them particularly desired for surgeons who are looking for a glove that will see them safely through even the most demanding surgeries.
Today the Ansell Sensoprene™ triple dip technology allows for neoprene gloves to be 30% thinner while still offering HCWs best in class allergy protection and optimum neoprene strength.

The neoprene ‘classic’

  • Green glove
  • Standard thickness
  • Moderate grip level
  • 100% chemical accelerator free
  • High durability

 

Allergy protection with superior sensitivity

  • White glove
  • Micro thickness
  • Moderate grip level
  • 100% chemical accelerator free
  • Sensoprene™ technology

 

The underglove with advanced allergy protection

  • Green glove
  • Micro thickness
  • Low grip level
  • 100% chemical accelerator free

 

THE STATISTICS

Protecting the health of healthcare workers (HCWs)

30% of HCWs’ skin-related reactions are chemical allergies or sensitivities3,4,5

graph

80% of these allergies and sensitivities are caused by chemical accelerators6,7

10-17% is the latex sensitisation rate in the HCWs population8

graph

Latex specific IgE decreased in 88% of sensitised individuals when exposed only to non-latex materials9

Protecting the health of patients

Latex Sensitisation Rates

1-6% graph

of the general population10,11,12

Increases to 30% graph

if patients are atopic13

Increases to 50-55% graph Decreases to 5% when children are exposed only to non-latex materials15

in children who have multiple surgeries or with spina bifida10,14,15

 

 

 

References:

  1. Kjellen MB. 2010. Handeksem av latexfria handskar (Hand eczema from latex-free gloves). Uppdukat. 2:30-31.
  2. Rose RF, Lyons P, Horne H, Wilkinson SM. 2009. A review of the materials and allergens in protective gloves. Contact Dermatitis. 61:129-137.
  3. Nixon R. 2005. Occupational dermatoses. Australian Family Physician. 34(5).
  4. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Frosch PJ, Rustemeyer T. 1998 Sept. Contact allergies in healthcare workers: results from the IVDK. Acta Derm Venereol. 78(5):358-63.
  5. Thompson R. 1996. Chemical allergy: the other latex allergy. Source to Surgery. 4(1).
  6. Gardner N. 2008 Oct. Shield Scientific: health and safety international.
  7. Heese A, Hintzenstern JV, Peters K, Koch HU, Hornstein OP. 1991. Allergic and irritant reactions to rubber gloves in medical health services. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 25:831-839.6.
  8. Brehler R, Kütting B. 2001. Natural rubber latex allergy. Archives of Internal Medicine. 161: 1057-1064.
  9. Hamilton R, Brown R. 2000. Impact of personal avoidance practices on health care workers sensitized to natural rubber latex. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 839-841.
  10. Capelli C. 2011. Éviction du latex en chirurgie pédiatrique: étude de faisabilité au CHU de Grenoble [MS thesis]. [Grenoble]: Université Joseph Fourrier. Faculté de Pharmacie de Grenoble. Print.
  11. Poley GE, Slater JE. 2000. Latex allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 105(6):1054-62.
  12. Neugut AL, Ghatak AT, Miller RL. 2001. Anaphylaxis in the United States: An investigation into its epidemiology. Archives of Internal Medicine. 161(1):15-21.
  13. Verna N, Di Giampaolo L, Renzetti A, Balatsinou L, Di Stefano F, Di Gioacchino G, Di Rocco P, Schiavone C, Boscolo P, Di Gioacchino M. 2003 Spring. Prevalence and risk factors for latex-related diseases among healthcare workers in an Italian general hospital. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 33(2):184-191.
  14. De Queiroz M, Combet S, Berard J, Pouyau A, Genest H, Mouriquand P, Chassard D. 2009. Latex allergy in children: modalities and prevention.Paediatric Anaesthesia. 19: 313-319.
  15. Blumchen K, Bayer P, Buck D, Michael T, Cremer R, Fricke C, Henne T, Peters H, Hofmann U, Keil T, Schlaud M, Wahn U, Niggemann B. 2010. Effects of latex avoidance on latex sensitization, atopy and allergic diseases in patients with spina bifida. Allergy. 65:1585-1593.