%0 Journal Article %1 mansour_eye_2009 %A Mansour, Alfred A %A Even, Jesse L %A Phillips, Sharon %A Halpern, Jennifer L %D 2009 %J The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume %K Cadaver, Conjunctiva, Devices, Eye Femur, Humans, Manikins, Orthopedics, Osteotomy Protective goggle, %N 5 %P 1050--1054 %R 10.2106/JBJS.H.00460 %T Eye protection in orthopaedic surgery. An in vitro study of various forms of eye protection and their effectiveness %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19411452 %V 91 %X BACKGROUND: Conjunctival contamination from splashed debris during orthopaedic surgical procedures places surgeons at risk for communicable diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B and C. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of various types of protective eyewear in preventing conjunctival contamination. METHODS: A simulation model was constructed with use of a mannequin head in a typical position of a surgeon's head during an operation. The head was placed at an appropriate distance from the surgical field, and a femoral osteotomy was performed on a cadaver thigh. Six experimental groups were tested to determine the ability of various types of eye protection to prevent contamination of the conjunctiva: (1) modern prescription glasses, (2) standard surgical telescopic loupes, (3) hard plastic contoured glasses, (4) disposable plastic glasses, (5) a combination facemask and eye shield, and (6) no protection (control). Thirty femoral osteotomies were performed, and contamination of both the protective devices and the simulated conjunctival surfaces were recorded. RESULTS: None of the tested devices were completely effective. The modern prescription glasses and the controls both were associated with conjunctival contamination rates of 83\%. The other eye protective devices were associated with significantly lower rates of overall contamination, with a rate of 50\% for the loupes, 30\% for the facemask and eye shield, 17\% for the hard plastic glasses, and 3\% for the disposable plastic glasses. CONCLUSIONS: Modern prescription glasses provided no benefit over the control in our experimental model; therefore, we do not recommend that they be used as the sole eye protection, especially during surgical procedures in which there is a high rate of debris expulsion from the wound. Readily available and disposable plastic glasses were associated with the lowest rate of conjunctival contamination (3\%) and are an effective means with which to protect the orthopaedic surgeon from communicable diseases by conjunctival contamination.

@article{mansour_eye_2009, abstract = {{BACKGROUND:} Conjunctival contamination from splashed debris during orthopaedic surgical procedures places surgeons at risk for communicable diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus {(HIV)} and hepatitis B and C. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of various types of protective eyewear in preventing conjunctival contamination. {METHODS:} A simulation model was constructed with use of a mannequin head in a typical position of a surgeon's head during an operation. The head was placed at an appropriate distance from the surgical field, and a femoral osteotomy was performed on a cadaver thigh. Six experimental groups were tested to determine the ability of various types of eye protection to prevent contamination of the conjunctiva: (1) modern prescription glasses, (2) standard surgical telescopic loupes, (3) hard plastic contoured glasses, (4) disposable plastic glasses, (5) a combination facemask and eye shield, and (6) no protection (control). Thirty femoral osteotomies were performed, and contamination of both the protective devices and the simulated conjunctival surfaces were recorded. {RESULTS:} None of the tested devices were completely effective. The modern prescription glasses and the controls both were associated with conjunctival contamination rates of 83\%. The other eye protective devices were associated with significantly lower rates of overall contamination, with a rate of 50\% for the loupes, 30\% for the facemask and eye shield, 17\% for the hard plastic glasses, and 3\% for the disposable plastic glasses. {CONCLUSIONS:} Modern prescription glasses provided no benefit over the control in our experimental model; therefore, we do not recommend that they be used as the sole eye protection, especially during surgical procedures in which there is a high rate of debris expulsion from the wound. Readily available and disposable plastic glasses were associated with the lowest rate of conjunctival contamination (3\%) and are an effective means with which to protect the orthopaedic surgeon from communicable diseases by conjunctival contamination.}, added-at = {2011-03-11T10:05:34.000+0100}, author = {Mansour, Alfred A and Even, Jesse L and Phillips, Sharon and Halpern, Jennifer L}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2118bcded397b27459fe7eb1a01dc3bf7/jelias}, doi = {10.2106/JBJS.H.00460}, interhash = {1f3019ab6ee7d09c5d6d1f612d9a41fa}, intrahash = {118bcded397b27459fe7eb1a01dc3bf7}, issn = {1535-1386}, journal = {The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume}, keywords = {Cadaver, Conjunctiva, Devices, Eye Femur, Humans, Manikins, Orthopedics, Osteotomy Protective goggle,}, month = may, note = {{PMID:} 19411452}, number = 5, pages = {1050--1054}, timestamp = {2011-03-11T10:06:37.000+0100}, title = {Eye protection in orthopaedic surgery. An in vitro study of various forms of eye protection and their effectiveness}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19411452}, volume = 91, year = 2009 }