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.
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.