Radiation Shielding Effect of Surgical Loupes Compared with Lead-Lined Glasses and Plastic Face Shields.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.24.00642
Kyle Hardacker, Pierce Hardacker, Tucker Callanan, Alan Daniels, Janine Bacic, Rachel Schilkowsky, Michael Oumano, Eren Kuris
{"title":"Radiation Shielding Effect of Surgical Loupes Compared with Lead-Lined Glasses and Plastic Face Shields.","authors":"Kyle Hardacker, Pierce Hardacker, Tucker Callanan, Alan Daniels, Janine Bacic, Rachel Schilkowsky, Michael Oumano, Eren Kuris","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.24.00642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fluoroscopy plays a crucial role in various medical procedures, especially in orthopaedic and spinal surgery. However, concerns have arisen regarding ocular radiation exposure given its association with posterior lens opacities and cataracts. Protective measures are essential to mitigate ocular radiation exposure. During spine surgery, loupes are frequently used but often lack lead lining. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effect of surgical loupes, as compared with lead glasses and plastic face shields, on ocular radiation exposure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Dosimeters were positioned anterior (unshielded) and posterior (shielded) to the lens of each type of eyewear: lead glasses, surgical loupes, and plastic face shields. Eyewear/dosimeters were exposed directly to the horizontal beam of a C-arm for 2 minutes of continuous fluoroscopy. This was repeated 20 times for each type of eyewear (40 total/eyewear, 120 times overall). Radiation doses were modeled with use of generalized estimating equations with a Gaussian distribution and identity link function. Separate models were employed for each outcome, including eyewear category (lead glasses, loupes, plastic shield) and dosimeter position (anterior/unshielded versus posterior/shielded).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Radiation dose was significantly lower in posterior compared with anterior dosimeters for lead glasses (0.00 versus 1,689.80 mRem; p < 0.001) and for loupes (20.27 versus 1,705.95 mRem; p < 0.001). The difference for plastic face shields did not reach significance (1,539.75 versus 1,701.45 mRem; p = 0.06). Lead glasses offered the most protection, followed by surgical loupes and then plastic shields, when comparing the shielded dosimeter readings (0.00 versus 20.27 versus 1,539.75; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant difference in radiation dose for dosimeters placed anterior to lead glasses, loupes, and plastic face shields (1,689.80 versus 1,705.95 versus 1,701.45 mRem; p = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lead glasses were most effective (∼100% reduction), followed by surgical loupes (97%), whereas plastic face shields showed no significant reduction in radiation dose. Surgical loupes can substantially reduce ocular radiation exposure.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Surgical loupes may offer ocular radiation protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00642","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Fluoroscopy plays a crucial role in various medical procedures, especially in orthopaedic and spinal surgery. However, concerns have arisen regarding ocular radiation exposure given its association with posterior lens opacities and cataracts. Protective measures are essential to mitigate ocular radiation exposure. During spine surgery, loupes are frequently used but often lack lead lining. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effect of surgical loupes, as compared with lead glasses and plastic face shields, on ocular radiation exposure.

Methods: Dosimeters were positioned anterior (unshielded) and posterior (shielded) to the lens of each type of eyewear: lead glasses, surgical loupes, and plastic face shields. Eyewear/dosimeters were exposed directly to the horizontal beam of a C-arm for 2 minutes of continuous fluoroscopy. This was repeated 20 times for each type of eyewear (40 total/eyewear, 120 times overall). Radiation doses were modeled with use of generalized estimating equations with a Gaussian distribution and identity link function. Separate models were employed for each outcome, including eyewear category (lead glasses, loupes, plastic shield) and dosimeter position (anterior/unshielded versus posterior/shielded).

Results: Radiation dose was significantly lower in posterior compared with anterior dosimeters for lead glasses (0.00 versus 1,689.80 mRem; p < 0.001) and for loupes (20.27 versus 1,705.95 mRem; p < 0.001). The difference for plastic face shields did not reach significance (1,539.75 versus 1,701.45 mRem; p = 0.06). Lead glasses offered the most protection, followed by surgical loupes and then plastic shields, when comparing the shielded dosimeter readings (0.00 versus 20.27 versus 1,539.75; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant difference in radiation dose for dosimeters placed anterior to lead glasses, loupes, and plastic face shields (1,689.80 versus 1,705.95 versus 1,701.45 mRem; p = 0.99).

Conclusions: Lead glasses were most effective (∼100% reduction), followed by surgical loupes (97%), whereas plastic face shields showed no significant reduction in radiation dose. Surgical loupes can substantially reduce ocular radiation exposure.

Clinical relevance: Surgical loupes may offer ocular radiation protection.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
期刊最新文献
Association Between Tourniquet Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Comparison. Magnetic Intramedullary Lengthening Nails Can Be Lengthened to Their Maximum Capacity with No Increased Nail Complications: A Study of Pediatric and Adult Populations. Radiation Shielding Effect of Surgical Loupes Compared with Lead-Lined Glasses and Plastic Face Shields. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Total Joint Arthroplasty Outcome Measures Varies Substantially by Calculation Method. Weight Loss Before Total Joint Arthroplasty Using a Remote Dietitian and a Mobile Application: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1