Use Of Protective Eyewear Research Articles

Increasing compliance with protective eyewear to reduce ocular injuries in stone-quarry workers in Tamil Nadu, India: A pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of a single education session versus an enhanced education package delivered over six months

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of standard education versus enhanced education in increasing compliance with protective eyewear to prevent ocular injuries in stone-quarry workers. DesignPragmatic, allocation concealed, participant and outcome assessor blinded, cluster randomised trial. SettingSix stone-quarries around Vellore, Tamil Nadu, South India. Participants204 consenting adult stone quarry workers. InterventionsProtective eyewear plus enhanced education (one education session, plus 11 sessions of group education, individual discussions, and educational plays over six months) versus protective eyewear plus standard education (one education session and 5 follow up visits). OutcomesThe primary outcomes were observer-rated compliance with protective eyewear and reduction in incidence of ocular injuries (slit-lamp examination by an observer blinded to allocation status) at three and six months. Analysis was by intention to treat. ResultsQuarries and participants were similar at enrolment. All quarries; 92/103 (90%) of workers in three quarries given enhanced intervention, and 91/101 workers (89%) in three quarries given standard education, completed six months follow up. Compared to standard education, enhanced education significantly increased compliance with protective eyewear by 16% (95% CI 3–28%) at three months (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.2–3.8); and by 25% (95% CI 11–35%) at six months (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.5–4.8). Protective eyewear and enhanced education reduced the incidence of eye injuries at three months by 16% (95% CI 7–24%); and standard education by 13% (95% CI 4–22%), compared to the three months before interventions. The cumulative reduction over baseline in eye injuries at the six months was greater with enhanced education (12% decrease; 95% CI 3–21%) than with standard education (7% decrease; 95% CI 17% decrease to 3% increase). However, this incidence did not differ significantly between intervention arms at three months (OR 0.7% 95% CI 0.3–2.1); and at six months (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4–1.5). ConclusionProvision of appropriate protective eyewear reduces the incidence of eye injuries in stone-quarry workers. Periodic educational and motivational sessions with individuals and groups facilitates sustained use of protective eyewear.

The Depiction of Protective Eyewear Use in Popular Television Programs

Media portrayal of health related activities may influence health related behaviors in adult and pediatric populations. This study characterizes the depiction of protective eyewear use in the scripted television programs most viewed by the age group that sustains the largest proportion of eye injuries. Viewership ratings data were acquired to assemble a list of the 24 most-watched scripted network broadcast programs for the 13-year-old to 45-year-old age group. The six highest average viewership programs that met the exclusion criteria were selected for analysis. Review of 30 episodes revealed a total of 258 exposure scenes in which an individual was engaged in an activity requiring eye protection (mean, 8.3 exposure scenes per episode; median, 5 exposure scenes per episode). Overall, 66 (26%) of exposure scenes depicted the use of any eye protection, while only 32 (12%) of exposure scenes depicted the use of adequate eye protection. No incidences of eye injuries or infectious exposures were depicted within the exposure scenes in the study set. The depiction of adequate protective eyewear use during eye-risk activities is rare in network scripted broadcast programs. Healthcare professionals and health advocacy groups should continue to work to improve public education about eye injury risks and prevention; these efforts could include working with the television industry to improve the accuracy of the depiction of eye injuries and the proper protective eyewear used for prevention of injuries in scripted programming. Future studies are needed to examine the relationship between media depiction of eye protection use and viewer compliance rates.

Anesthesiologists in the Neurointerventional Suite

Anesthesiologists in the Neurointerventional Suite

Ocular injuries among industrial welders in Port Harcourt, Nigeria

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and pattern of ocular injuries among industrial welders and rate the use of protective eyewear at work among industrial welders in Port Harcourt. Information from this study will provide a database for effective policy formation on prevention of occupational eye injuries in Port Harcourt Rivers State.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of ocular injuries and use of protective eyewear among industrial welders in the Port Harcourt local government area of Rivers State, Nigeria, was carried out over a three-month period. Five hundred welders were selected by simple random sampling. Information was obtained using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. All welders were examined in their workshops.ResultsFlying metal chips were the chief source of ocular injury, as reported by 199 (68.15%) of those who gave a history of work-related eye injury, while arc rays accounted for the remaining 93 (31.85%). There was a high level of awareness of the risk of sustaining an eye injury from welding (n = 490, 98%), but only 46 (15.3%) of the welders were using protective eyewear at the time of injury.ConclusionTo minimize ocular injury and promote eye health amongst industrial welders, safety intervention programs, such as awareness campaigns, setting up of targeted programs by the relevant government agencies, and encouragement of locally produced eye protectors is recommended. The involvement of occupational medical practitioners is also strongly recommended.

Legislation as a tool to prevent firework-related eye injuries

Editor, The use of fireworks is banned in Norway except for on New Year’s Eve, the party day when intoxicated young men are allowed to set off these explosives while huge gatherings of people stay close to watch. It is a long tradition associated with many and serious eye injuries. In Denmark (Thygesen 2000) and Sweden (Sundelin & Norrsell 2000), there has been focus on these injuries, but not in Norway until 2002, when preventive measures were initiated because our department of ophthalmology received many young men with injured eyes on New Year’s Eve. This letter examines the effect of these measures, especially legislation. Information on all firework-related injuries was collected by telephone contact to all 17 departments of ophthalmology in Norway on New Year’s Day from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009. Injuries were classified by sex and by degree of seriousness as moderately serious and very serious. Minor injuries, which are rarely referred to departments, were not included. Minor injuries were defined as abrasions of cornea and mild burn injuries of eyelids. Very serious injuries were defined as penetrating or blunt trauma probably causing permanent blindness. Injuries in between minor and very serious were classified as moderately serious. Information was disseminated to the public on the risk of and how to prevent eye injuries by contacting the mass media during the week before New Year’s Eve, informing about the injuries the previous years and disseminating photographs of eyes injured. Local and national newspapers and radio and television stations were contacted. Special focus was given to the use of protective eyewear that from 2006 was distributed free of charge upon purchase of fireworks. The injury data collected from the departments of ophthalmology during New Year’s Day were broadcasted by the main national television station the same day. In 2007, a new focus on a proposal banning the private use of fireworks was introduced, constantly reminding the public authorities of their responsibility for fireworks-related injuries by not implementing effective preventive measures. In 2008, bottle rockets were banned in Norway. The effect of banning bottle rockets before New Year’s Eve 2008 was calculated using the mean annual injuries from 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 compared with the total injuries in 2008/2009. The Pearson chi-square test was performed using injured versus noninjured inhabitants in Norway in the various years. Mainly men were injured (Table 1). The incidence of firework-related eye injuries was relatively stable from 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 despite successful propaganda in the mass media about the risk of and how to prevent eye injuries (Table 2). The incidence decreased in 2006 after protective eyewear began to be offered free of charge upon purchase of fireworks, but this was not statistically significant. A breakthrough in reduction was accomplished in 2008 when bottle rockets were banned. The incidence was reduced by half (p = 0.03) compared with the mean incidence in the previous 3 years (Fig. 1). Incidence of firework-related eye injuries on New Year’s Eve in Norway, 2005–2008. Information about the risk of eye injuries and the use of protective eyewear seems to reach the people who already have low-risk behaviour. Young men, often intoxicated by alcohol while they use fireworks, seem to be out of reach of being influenced to handle fireworks safely and use protective eyewear. The banning of bottle rockets in this study removed the availability of fireworks considered more dangerous and thereby reduced injuries in both the low-risk and high-risk groups, similar to findings from the United Kingdom (Vernon 1988) and from the United States (Wilson 1982). Legislative removal from the market of the type of firework considered the most dangerous was definitely the most effective measure in reducing injury.

Occupational safety among dental health-care workers

Compared to other health-care workers, dental health-care workers come in close contact with patients and use a variety of sharp and high-speed rotating instruments. It is important to understand the characteristics of the occupational accidents that occur. We reviewed incident reports from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2010, at Matsumoto Dental University Hospital. In addition, questionnaires dealing with identification of occupational safety issues, especially splash exposures, were conducted for dentists, dental hygienists, and nurses. Thirty-two occupational injuries were reported during the study period, including 23 sharp instrument injuries (71.9%), 6 splash exposures (18.8%), and 3 others. Of the six splash exposures, only two cases involved potential contamination with blood or other potentially infectious patient material. Of the 66 workers who experienced sharps injuries, 20 workers (30.3%, 20/66) reported them to the hospital work safety team. The questionnaire revealed high incident of splash exposures and conjunctiva exposures: 87.9% (51/58) and 60.3% (35/58) in dentists and 88.6% (39/44) and 61.4% (27/44) in dental hygienists. The compliance rate for routine use of protective eyewear was 60.3% (35/58) for dentists and 34.1% (15/44) for hygienists. Of the presented informational items included in the questionnaire, those that strongly persuaded respondents to use protective eyewear were ‘splatters from the patient’s mouth contain blood’ (90%, 99/110) and ‘dental operations at our clinic are performed based only on a questionnaire without serious examinations for HBV, HCV, and HIV’ (71.8%, 79/110). The reason of low compliance of protective eyewear among dentists might relate to fine dental procedures. Appropriate information is important for the motive of wearing personal protective equipment, and an early educational program may have a potential to increase compliance with the use of that equipment.

Eye Safety Practices Among The Dental Personnel Of University Of Benin Teaching Hospital, Nigeria

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of use of protective eye wear and hazards related to non compliance with recommended eye safety practice among the dental personnel of University of Benin Teaching Hospital.Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to the dental personnel of University of Benin Teaching Hospital to determine how regularly they use protective eye wear while working in the clinic and laboratory. The prevalence of foreign body to the eye, ocular injuries and conjunctivitis among the dental personnel was also determined. Results: 152 questionnaires out of 155 were returned filled giving a response rate of 98%. Twenty nine (19.1%) of the dental personnel are regular wearers of protective eye wear. There was no significant difference in the use of protective eye wear among the dental personnel (p>0.05). Forty one (27%) had experienced foreign body to the eye out of which eight (19.5%) and thirty three (80.5%) are regular and irregular wearerrespectively. Twenty six (17.1%) had experienced ocular injury at least once in a month in the clinic out of which three (11.5%) and twenty three (88.5%) are regular wearer and irregular wearer respectively. Thirteen (8.6%) had experienced conjunctivitis at least once a month out of which one (7.7%) and twelve (92.3%) are regular wearer and irregular wearer of protective eye wear respectively.Conclusion: The frequency of use of protective eye wear among the dental personnel was low. As such, there is a need to promote awareness on the importance of protecting the eyes while working in the dental clinics and laboratories to prevent ocular injury and infection.Keywords: Eye safety practices, ocular injuries, dental personnel, occupational hazards

Recurrent corneal metallic foreign bodies in children with autism spectrum disorders

Corneal metallic foreign body is a common condition in working-age adults due to occupational exposure, such as grinding, welding, and hammering. Ocular trauma is a leading cause of vision loss in children; however, corneal metallic foreign bodies are rare in the pediatric population. Here we describe 2 children suffering from autism spectrum disorders presenting with recurrent corneal metallic foreign bodies. Meticulous history revealed that both children extensively used a therapeutic home swing with metallic suspensions, suggesting the potential mechanism for the recurrent corneal metallic foreign bodies. Furthermore, the use of protective eyewear during swinging prevented further recurrences. Awareness of this potential danger is particularly important in children with disabilities, who may have difficulty communicating their concerns and cooperating during examination and treatment.

Prevalence of ocular injury and the use of protective eye wear among the dental personnel in a Teaching Hospital

To determine the prevalence of ocular injury and the frequency of use of protective eye wear among the dental personnel of Lagos University teaching hospital. A structured questionnaire was distributed to dental personnel of Lagos University Teaching Hospital working in the dental clinic and laboratory within a period of one month (November 2006). Ninety questionnaires out of 105 questionnaires were returned filled giving a response rate of 90.5%. 36.7% of the dental personnel are regular wearers of protective eye wear. 28.9% of males and 42.3% of females are regular wearers. Among the dental personnel the dental therapists showed the highest frequency of regular eye protection (100%) while the technologists showed the lowest frequency of regular eye protection (20%). There was significant difference in the prevalence of ocular injury among the dental personnel with the technologist having the highest prevalence of 40% and the dental students having the lowest prevalence of 15.4% (p < 0.05). The frequency of using protective eye wear among the dental personnel of Lagos University Teaching hospital was low. The use of protective eye wear should be emphasized for all dental personnel and patients to prevent the occurrence of ocular injuries in the clinic and laboratory.

Factors influencing worker use of personal protective eyewear

Objective To identify and describe the array of factors that influence a workers’ decision to wear personal protective eyewear (PPE) and the barriers that exist in preventing their use. Design, setting and participants A series of focus groups enrolled workers and supervisors primarily from manufacturing, construction, or service/retail industries that had potential exposure to eye injury hazards in their job tasks. Focus group sessions were facilitated to collect qualitative and quantitative data in two categories, “sought information” and “emergent themes”, related to the factors influencing use of PPE. Results We conducted a series of 7 groups with 51 participants, 36 (71%) males and 15 (29%) females ranging in age from 19 to 64 years old, from a variety of occupations including construction (24%), production (22%), installation, repair and maintenance (14%), and healthcare (10%). Most were highly experienced in their occupation (>10 years); males (86%) and females (53%), and had received some safety training in the past (82%). The majority of workers in this study were required to wear PPE on their worksite (78%), however only 55% had a dedicated safety officer. A conceptual model that summarizes the “sought information” and “emergent themes” is presented that depicts the decision making process for the factors influencing use of PPE and consists of three primary branches; perceptions of hazards and risks, “barriers” to PPE usage, and enforcement and reinforcement. Lack of comfort/fit, and fogging and scratching of the eyewear were suggested as the most important barriers to PPE usage. Younger age and lack of safety training were other important factors affecting use of PPE. Conclusions Several potentially modifiable factors identified would lead to an increase in workers’ PPE use and encourage supervisors to provide ongoing positive feedback on the continuous use of PPE by workers at risk for an eye injury.

Occupational eye injuries: a continuing problem

Ocular trauma is a worldwide cause of visual morbidity, a significant proportion of which occurs in the workplace. This is largely preventable with the use of protective eyewear and strict compliance. To analyse the type of occupational eye injuries that occur and to document the use of eye protection in patients presenting to a UK district general hospital. A pilot retrospective case note analysis of all ocular injuries seen in one calendar month was performed. A prospective survey of consecutive occupational ocular injuries presenting to this district general accident and emergency (A&E) department over a 2-month period was then carried out. Demographics, aetiology, eye protection usage and clinical details were recorded and analysed. Of all eye patients attending this A&E, 31% (87/283) were due to occupational eye injuries. Of 55 prospectively reviewed patients with occupational eye injuries, the majority had minor injuries. Of the cases where eye protection was recorded, 56% (18/32) were not wearing any protection and 44% (14/32) wore eye protection at the time of injury. Occupational eye injuries are a commonly seen ocular complaint in the A&E department. Provision of appropriate eyewear protection and worker education is required to minimize the incidence of ocular injury in the workplace.

Attitudes and behavior of dental students concerning infection control rules: a study with a10-year interval

The study compared the attitudes and behavior of 4th-year dental students regarding infection control rules in 1995 and 2005. Self-administrated questionnaires were applied to 592 students at 5 different dental schools in 1995 (n=350) and in 2005 (n=242). The chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical analysis of data. Significance level was set at p<0.05. The response rate was 90.3% in 1995 and 81.0% in 2005. There was no improvement in the use of rubber gloves (p=0.316), face masks (p=0.572) or gowns (p=0.862) between 1995 and 2005. There was a lesser frequency of the use of protective eyewear in 2005 (p<0.001). No student used the individual protection equipment correctly. There was a decrease in the sterilization of burs in 2005 when compared to 1995 (p<0.001). No student could describe the correct use of the autoclave. Disinfection and use of a dental chair barrier were done correctly by a minority of students in 1995 (2.8%) and 2005 (6.1%) (p=0.069). Most students correctly discarded perforating/cutting instruments in both years (p=0.749). The attitudes and behavior of dental students concerning infection control are worrisome. There was no improvement and, for some parameters, there was a worsening in the procedures over the time period evaluated.

Ocular Trauma and Visual Outcome Secondary to Paintball Projectiles

To describe ocular injuries attributable to paintball-related trauma and their management and results. Retrospective, interventional case series. setting: University practice and emergency department. patient population: Thirty-six eyes of 36 patients who sustained ocular injuries secondary to paintballs between July 1, 1998 and January 1, 2005. observation procedure: Age, gender, laterality, setting, eye protection, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and initial diagnosis were documented. main outcome measures: Medical and surgical intervention within the first three days postinjury and further treatment after this time period were recorded. BCVA at the initial and final clinical visit were compared. The mean follow-up interval was 11.7 months (one to 40). Mean age was 21 years (three to 64), 31 (86%) were male, 34 (97%) were not wearing eye-protection device when injured, and initial BCVA was worse than 20/200 in 28 eyes (78%). The most common ocular finding was hyphema in 29 eyes (81%). Initially, 20 eyes (56%) were managed medically and nine eyes (25%) required primary repair of a ruptured globe. Ultimately, 29 eyes (81%) had surgical intervention including eight eyes (22%) enucleations. Final visual acuity was 20/40 or better in 13 eyes (36%), whereas 18 eyes (50%) were worse than 20/200. Visual acuity (VA) at initial presentation correlated strongly with final VA (r = 0.64; P < .001). Paintball-related ocular injuries are frequently severe and visually devastating. The compulsive use of protective eyewear may have eliminated 97% of injuries in this series and continues to need emphasis to paintball users.

Ocular Injuries in Basketball and Baseball

Ocular trauma is a frequent result of sports-related injury during basketball and baseball. A screening sideline examination should be performed immediately to assess vision and evaluate the severity of damage. The team physician should be able to treat minor injuries and identify vision-threatening trauma for immediate referral. Injuries range from minor, including corneal abrasion and foreign bodies, to more severe, including hyphema, orbital fracture, and globe rupture. Resultant damage may be vision-threatening and permanent. Most of these injuries can be prevented with full-time use of sport-specific protective eyewear. Physicians should recommend appropriate eye protection and counsel patients accordingly.

Scattered UV irradiation during VISX excimer laser keratorefractive surgery

To evaluate the potential occupational health hazards associated with scattered ultraviolet (UV) radiation during photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) using the VISX Star S3 excimer laser. The Laser Vision Center, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Intraoperative radiometric measurements were made with the Ophir Power/Energy Meter (LaserStar Model PD-10 with silicon detector) during PRK treatments as well as during required calibration procedures at a distance of 20.3 cm from the left cornea. These measurements were evaluated using a worst-case scenario for exposure, and then compared with the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygeinists (ACGIH) Threshold Value Limits (TVL) to perform a risk/hazard analysis. During the PRK procedures, the highest measured value was 248.4 nJ/pulse. During the calibration procedures, the highest measured UV scattered radiation level was 149.6 nJ/pulse. The maximum treatment time was 52 seconds. Using a worst-case scenario in which all treatments used the maximum power and time, the total energy per eye treated was 0.132 mJ/cm2 and the total UV radiation at close range (80 cm from the treated eye) was 0.0085 mJ/cm2. With a workload of 20 patients, the total occupational exposure at 80 cm to actinic UV radiation in an 8-hour period would be 0.425 mJ/cm2. The scattered actinic UV laser radiation from the VISX Star S3 excimer laser did not exceed occupational exposure limits during a busy 8-hour workday, provided that operating room personnel were at least 80 cm from the treated eye. While the use of protective eyewear is always prudent, this study demonstrates that the trace amounts of scattered laser emissions produced by this laser do not pose a serious health risk even without the use of protective eyewear.

What do healthcare workers think? A survey of facial protection equipment user preferences

Data on healthcare workers'(HCWs) self-reported knowledge regarding selection of facial protection equipment, usage preferences and compliance are limited. We used a questionnaire on the use of facial protection equipment at a 700-bed adult tertiary care hospital employing approximately 7000 HCWs. Clinical areas targeted were those with frequent users of N95 respirators: intensive care unit, emergency room, respiratory services, and internal medicine. Respiratory therapists were also invited. In all, 137 questionnaires (68.5%) were returned. Most (72.8%) reported that training on the use of facial protection equipment was 'sufficient' to 'excellent'. The PFR95 and 3M 1860 Cone were used most frequently (56%) followed by the 3M 1870 Pocket (42%). While 95% reported having been fit-tested, only 60% were tested annually. PRF95 use exceeded the number of HCWs fit-tested for the item. Overall comfort and compliance scores were 13.6/20 and 21.5/25, respectively, for respirators and 7.7/10 and 18.5/25 for protective eyewear. No relationship between comfort and years of use of either respirators or protective eyewear was found. The results highlight potential failures in effectiveness in the use of personal protective equipment that could compromise HCW safety, and support observations that compliance in the workplace is usually less than in the research setting.

Use of Protective Eyewear in U.S. Adults: Results from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey

Purpose: Many eye injuries occur because of not using protective eyewear. This study analyzed the 2002 National Health Interview Survey data to examine the rate of using protective eyewear during activities that could cause eye injuries outside the workplace and the correlates of not using protective eyewear among U.S. adults. Methods: The rate of participation in activities that could cause eye injuries and the rate of protective eyewear use during these activities were estimated using sample weights to yield national estimates. Results: A total of 30,894 individuals in the survey provided valid data for the current analysis, which revealed that 29.3% of the U.S. adults reported engaging in activities that could cause an eye injury and 32.1% of those used eye protection while doing such activities. Males were more likely to use eye protection than females (34.7% vs. 25.2%). The age group of 18–24 years was least likely to use eye protection (15.3%). Other factors associated with not using protective eyewear included being black or other races, non-retired individuals, and those from low-income families (all p-values < 0.05). Conclusions: Use of protective eyewear during activities that could cause eye injuries was relatively low in the US adult population. Certain groups were at a higher risk for not using eye protection, including females, young adults aged 18–24 years, black or other races, and individuals with a low socioeconomic status. To promote eye safety, health education programs should target these high-risk groups.

Should eye protection be worn during dermatological surgery: prospective observational study

There is a potential risk of infection with blood-borne viruses if a doctor receives a blood splash to a mucous membrane. The quantification of facial contamination with blood has never been documented in the context of dermatological surgery. (i) To identify the number of facial blood splashes that occur during skin surgery and to identify the procedures that present higher risks for the operator and assistant. (ii) To assess the provision of eye protection and attitudes to its use in dermatological surgery in the U.K. (i) Prospective, observational study in the skin surgery suite of a U.K. teaching hospital assessing 100 consecutive dermatological surgery procedures, plus 100 consecutive operations in which an assistant was present. number of face-mask visors with at least one blood splash. to identify if any of the following variables influenced the occurrence of a blood splash: grade of operator, site and type of procedure, and the use of electrocautery. (ii) A postal survey of all U.K.-based members of the British Society of Dermatological Surgery (BSDS) was conducted assessing facilities available and the attitudes of U.K.-based clinicians to the use of face masks during surgery. (i) In 33% of all surgical procedures there was at least one facial splash to the operator (range 1-75) and in 15% of procedures the assistant received at least one splash (range 1-11). Use of monopolar electrocautery was significantly less likely to result in splashes to the mask compared with bipolar electrocautery [odds ratio (OR) 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.19]. Compared with the head/neck, operations on the body were significantly more likely to result in splashes to the mask (OR 6.52) (95% CI 1.7-25.07). The type of procedure and the status of the operator did not have a bearing on the likelihood of receiving a splash to the mask. (ii) From the survey, 33 of 159 (20.8%) of BSDS members had no face masks available and 54 of 159 (34.0%) did not wear any facial protection while operating. The majority (53.5%) thought they received a splash in <or= 1% of procedures. There is a substantial risk of a splash of blood coming into contact with the face during dermatological surgery for both the operator and assistant, regardless of the procedure. The risk of receiving a blood splash to the face may be substantially underestimated by U.K.-based dermatologists. The use of protective eyewear is advisable at all times, but particularly when using bipolar electrocautery, or when operating on high-risk individuals.

Do Modern Spectacles Endanger Surgeons?

Despite documented cases of infectious disease transmission to medical staff via conjunctival contamination and widespread recommendation of protective eyewear use during surgical procedures, a large number of surgeons rely on their prescription spectacles as sole eye protection. Modern fashion spectacles, being of increasingly slim design, may no longer be adequate in this role. A survey was conducted among the surgeons at Waikato Hospital from December 7, 2004 to February 1, 2005, to assess current operating theater eyewear practices and attitudes. Those who wore prescription spectacles were asked to assume a standardized "operating position" from which anatomic measurements were obtained. These data were mathematically analyzed to determine the degree of palebral fissure protection conferred by their spectacles. Of 71 surgical practitioners surveyed, 45.1% required prescription lenses for operating, the mean spectacle age being 2.45 years; 84.5% had experienced prior periorbital blood splashes; 2.8% had previously contracted an illness attributed to such an event; 78.8% participants routinely used eye protection, but of the 27 requiring spectacles, 68.0% used these as their sole eye protection. Chief complaints about safety glasses and facial shields were of fogging, poor comfort, inability to wear spectacles underneath, and unavailability. Our model predicted that 100%, 92.6%, 77.8%, and 0% of our population were protected by their spectacles laterally, medially, inferiorly, and superiorly, respectively. Prescription spectacles of contemporary styling do not provide adequate protection against conjunctival blood splash injuries. Our model predicts the design adequacy of currently available purpose-designed protective eyewear, which should be used routinely.

Use of Protective Eyewear in U.S. Children: Results From the National Health Interview Survey

Purpose: To study use of protective eyewear in children who participated in activities that can cause eye injury. Methods: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2002 were used to analyze protective eyewear use by children who participated in activities that can cause eye injury. Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the sociodemographic characteristics of children who wore protective eyewear were analyzed. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated in logistic regression models. Results: In the 2002 NHIS, 3,901 children aged 6–17 years (51% of interviewed children) participated in activities that can cause eye injury, but while doing so, only 14.5% of children wore protective eyewear. After controlling for potentially confounding effects of study variables, females were less likely to wear protective eyewear than males (OR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48–0.76) and children aged 12–17 years were more likely to wear protective eyewear than children aged 6–8 years (12–14 year olds: OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.20–2.46; 15–17 year olds: OR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.11–2.31). Race/ethnicity, parent's education, family structure, poverty status, and region of United States residence did not have significant influence on protective eyewear use. Conclusions: To achieve the Healthy People 2010 objective of 20% of children using protective eyewear in recreational activities and hazardous situations around the home, intervention/education programs must continue to be improved and implemented.