黑光照明能否提高低照度手术室中脚踏板启动的速度和准确性?

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0034
Gabriel E Martin, Hyelin You, Jonathan Maldonado, Andrew Krause, Akin S Amasyali, Daniel Peverini, D Daniel Baldwin, Cayde Ritchie, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin
{"title":"黑光照明能否提高低照度手术室中脚踏板启动的速度和准确性?","authors":"Gabriel E Martin, Hyelin You, Jonathan Maldonado, Andrew Krause, Akin S Amasyali, Daniel Peverini, D Daniel Baldwin, Cayde Ritchie, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Urologists frequently activate foot pedals in a low-light operating room (OR). Pedal activation in low-light conditions poses the potential for incorrect pedal activation, potentially leading to increased radiation exposure, patient burns, or OR fires. This study compares speed, accuracy, dark adaptation, and surgeon preference for pedal activation in 4 lighting conditions. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> During a simulated percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), pedals for C-arm, laser, and ultrasonic lithotripter (USL) were randomized to 3 different positions. Urology attendings, residents, and medical students activated pedals in a randomized order in 4 settings: a dark OR with no illumination, an OR with overhead illumination, a dark OR with glowstick illumination, and a dark OR with blacklight illumination. Endpoints included pedal activation time; number of attempted, incomplete, and incorrect activations; dark adaptation; and subjective pedal preference. ANOVA was used for analysis with <i>p</i> < 0.05 considered significant. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In our study with 20 participants, the mean pedal activation times were significantly faster when using glowstick illumination (6.77 seconds) and blacklight illumination (5.34 seconds) compared with the no illumination arm (8.47 seconds, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Additionally, individual pedal activations for the C-arm, laser, and USL were significantly faster with glowstick and blacklight illumination compared with a dark OR (<i>p</i> < 0.001 for all). The blacklight illumination arm demonstrated decreased attempted (0.30 vs. 3.45, <i>p</i> < 0.001), incomplete (1.25 vs. 7.75, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and incorrect activations (0.35 vs. 1.25, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with the dark setting, while demonstrating no difference compared with having room lights on. Dark adaptation was significantly improved with blacklight illumination compared with having the room lights on (134.5 vs. 140.5 luminance, <i>p</i> < 0.001). All participants (100%) preferred illuminated pedals compared with the dark OR, with 90% favoring the blacklight illumination. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> During a simulated PCNL, blacklight illumination significantly improved accuracy and efficiency of pedal activation compared with the conventional dark OR, while maintaining the surgeon's dark adaptation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Blacklight Illumination Improve Speed and Accuracy of Foot Pedal Activation in the Low-Light Operating Room?\",\"authors\":\"Gabriel E Martin, Hyelin You, Jonathan Maldonado, Andrew Krause, Akin S Amasyali, Daniel Peverini, D Daniel Baldwin, Cayde Ritchie, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/end.2024.0034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Urologists frequently activate foot pedals in a low-light operating room (OR). Pedal activation in low-light conditions poses the potential for incorrect pedal activation, potentially leading to increased radiation exposure, patient burns, or OR fires. This study compares speed, accuracy, dark adaptation, and surgeon preference for pedal activation in 4 lighting conditions. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> During a simulated percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), pedals for C-arm, laser, and ultrasonic lithotripter (USL) were randomized to 3 different positions. Urology attendings, residents, and medical students activated pedals in a randomized order in 4 settings: a dark OR with no illumination, an OR with overhead illumination, a dark OR with glowstick illumination, and a dark OR with blacklight illumination. Endpoints included pedal activation time; number of attempted, incomplete, and incorrect activations; dark adaptation; and subjective pedal preference. ANOVA was used for analysis with <i>p</i> < 0.05 considered significant. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In our study with 20 participants, the mean pedal activation times were significantly faster when using glowstick illumination (6.77 seconds) and blacklight illumination (5.34 seconds) compared with the no illumination arm (8.47 seconds, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Additionally, individual pedal activations for the C-arm, laser, and USL were significantly faster with glowstick and blacklight illumination compared with a dark OR (<i>p</i> < 0.001 for all). The blacklight illumination arm demonstrated decreased attempted (0.30 vs. 3.45, <i>p</i> < 0.001), incomplete (1.25 vs. 7.75, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and incorrect activations (0.35 vs. 1.25, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with the dark setting, while demonstrating no difference compared with having room lights on. Dark adaptation was significantly improved with blacklight illumination compared with having the room lights on (134.5 vs. 140.5 luminance, <i>p</i> < 0.001). All participants (100%) preferred illuminated pedals compared with the dark OR, with 90% favoring the blacklight illumination. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> During a simulated PCNL, blacklight illumination significantly improved accuracy and efficiency of pedal activation compared with the conventional dark OR, while maintaining the surgeon's dark adaptation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0034\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0034","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:泌尿科医生经常在光线不足的手术室(OR)中启动脚踏板。在光线不足的条件下启动脚踏板有可能导致错误的脚踏板启动,从而可能导致辐射照射增加、病人烧伤或手术室火灾。本研究比较了在 4 种照明条件下启动踏板的速度、准确性、黑暗适应性和外科医生的偏好:在模拟经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)中,C 型臂、激光和超声碎石机(USL)的踏板被随机分配到 3 个不同的位置。泌尿科主治医师、住院医师和医科学生在以下 4 种环境中按随机顺序启动踏板:无照明的黑暗手术室、有顶灯照明的手术室、有荧光棒照明的黑暗手术室和有黑光灯照明的黑暗手术室。终点包括踏板激活时间、尝试激活、未完成激活和错误激活的次数、黑暗适应性和主观踏板偏好。采用方差分析和 pResults 分析:在我们对 20 名参与者进行的研究中,使用荧光棒照明(6.77 秒)和黑光灯照明(5.34 秒)时的平均踏板激活时间明显快于无照明臂(8.47 秒,p 结论:荧光棒照明和黑光灯照明的平均踏板激活时间分别为 6.77 秒和 5.34 秒:在模拟 PCNL 过程中,与传统的黑暗手术室相比,黑光照明显著提高了踏板激活的准确性和效率,同时保持了外科医生的黑暗适应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Does Blacklight Illumination Improve Speed and Accuracy of Foot Pedal Activation in the Low-Light Operating Room?

Background: Urologists frequently activate foot pedals in a low-light operating room (OR). Pedal activation in low-light conditions poses the potential for incorrect pedal activation, potentially leading to increased radiation exposure, patient burns, or OR fires. This study compares speed, accuracy, dark adaptation, and surgeon preference for pedal activation in 4 lighting conditions. Materials and Methods: During a simulated percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), pedals for C-arm, laser, and ultrasonic lithotripter (USL) were randomized to 3 different positions. Urology attendings, residents, and medical students activated pedals in a randomized order in 4 settings: a dark OR with no illumination, an OR with overhead illumination, a dark OR with glowstick illumination, and a dark OR with blacklight illumination. Endpoints included pedal activation time; number of attempted, incomplete, and incorrect activations; dark adaptation; and subjective pedal preference. ANOVA was used for analysis with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: In our study with 20 participants, the mean pedal activation times were significantly faster when using glowstick illumination (6.77 seconds) and blacklight illumination (5.34 seconds) compared with the no illumination arm (8.47 seconds, p < 0.001). Additionally, individual pedal activations for the C-arm, laser, and USL were significantly faster with glowstick and blacklight illumination compared with a dark OR (p < 0.001 for all). The blacklight illumination arm demonstrated decreased attempted (0.30 vs. 3.45, p < 0.001), incomplete (1.25 vs. 7.75, p < 0.001), and incorrect activations (0.35 vs. 1.25, p < 0.001) compared with the dark setting, while demonstrating no difference compared with having room lights on. Dark adaptation was significantly improved with blacklight illumination compared with having the room lights on (134.5 vs. 140.5 luminance, p < 0.001). All participants (100%) preferred illuminated pedals compared with the dark OR, with 90% favoring the blacklight illumination. Conclusions: During a simulated PCNL, blacklight illumination significantly improved accuracy and efficiency of pedal activation compared with the conventional dark OR, while maintaining the surgeon's dark adaptation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
期刊最新文献
Still Using Only ChatGPT? The Comparison of Five Different Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Answers to the Most Common Questions About Kidney Stones. Zero-Intrarenal Pressure Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for One-Stage Treatment of Non-Acute Infectious Calculous Pyonephrosis: A Strategy to Avert Sepsis. The Impact of External Sphincter Grading after Early Apical Release Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate on Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence. Does Blacklight Illumination Improve Speed and Accuracy of Foot Pedal Activation in the Low-Light Operating Room? Assessment of Holmium:YAG, pulsed-Thulium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers for Urinary Stone Ablation. In vitro study.
×
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