Eye Protection

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 258 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Michael Klompas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Melissa Cumming - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Meghan A Baker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Christopher N. Mcewan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Do modern spectacles endanger surgeons? The Waikato Eye Protection Study.
    Annals of surgery, 2007
    Co-Authors: Simon J. Chong, Charlotte Smith, Adam Bialostocki, Christopher N. Mcewan
    Abstract:

    Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Annette K. Hoskin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Eye Injuries across history and the evolution of Eye Protection
    Acta ophthalmologica, 2019
    Co-Authors: Annette K. Hoskin, David A. Mackey, Lisa Keay, Rupesh Agrawal, Stephanie L Watson
    Abstract:

    Purpose To describe the history of Eye injuries and the consequent evolution of Eye Protection. Methods A comprehensive search of Medline and the grey literature using the terms 'ocular trauma' and 'Eye Protection' or 'injury prevention' and 'history'. References were used to identify other relevant publications. Publications were classified according to the setting of Eye injury: occupational, recreational or combat-related. Results Eye Protection has been described in a wide range of sources, including in literature and art. With advances in Eye Protection material and design, as well as government and societal promotion of appropriate Eye Protection usage in the workplace, the epidemiology of ocular trauma has changed over time. In developed countries, the use of Eye Protection in the workplace has reduced the proportion of occupation-related Eye injuries over the last century, with a higher proportion occurring during sports or at home. New Protection devices and policies have evolved to meet this change. Conclusion Vision loss has broad implications for the individual and for society and despite available prevention strategies, ocular trauma is a significant cause of preventable monocular and bilateral vision loss. The use of appropriate Eye Protection has reduced the burden of ocular trauma. History provides lessons for informing current Eye Protection and Eye injury prevention strategies.

  • Spectacle‐related Eye injuries, spectacle‐impact performance and Eye Protection
    Clinical & experimental optometry, 2015
    Co-Authors: Annette K. Hoskin, Stephen J. Dain, Swetha S. Philip, David A. Mackey
    Abstract:

    The aim was to review the prevalence of spectacle-related ocular trauma and the performance of currently available spectacle materials and to identify the risk factors associated with spectacle-related ocular trauma. A literature review was conducted using Medline, Embase and Google with the keywords 'Eyeglasses' OR 'spectacles' AND 'ocular injury' / 'Eye injury'/ 'Eye trauma' / 'ocular trauma'. Articles published prior to 1975 were excluded from this review because of advances in spectacle lens technology and Food and Drug Administration legislative changes requiring impact resistance of all prescription spectacle lenses in the United States. Six hundred and ninety-five individual ocular traumas, for which spectacles contributed to or were the main cause of injury, were identified in the literature. Eye injuries occurred when spectacles were worn in sports, in which medium- to high-impact energies were exerted from balls, racquets or bats and/or as a result of a collision with another player. Frame, lens design and product material choice were found to be associated with ocular injury, with polycarbonate lenses cited as the material of choice in the literature. International, regional and national standards for spectacle lenses had a wide range of impact requirements for prescription spectacle lenses, sports Eye Protection and occupational Eye Protection. Spectacle-related injury represents a small but preventable cause of ocular injury. With the increasing numbers of spectacle wearers and calls to spend more time outdoors to reduce myopia, spectacle wearers need to be made aware of the potential risks associated with wearing spectacles during medium- to high-risk activities. At particular risk are those prone to falls, the functionally one-Eyed, those who have corneal thinning or have had previous Eye surgery or injury. With increased understanding of specific risk factors, performance guidelines can be developed for prescription spectacle Eye-Protection requirements. Language: en

  • Assessment of fogging resistance of anti‐fog personal Eye Protection
    Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 1999
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Dain, Annette K. Hoskin, Chris Winder, Don P. Dingsdag
    Abstract:

    The propensity for occupational Eye protectors to fog in warm and moist conditions is often offered as a reason by workers not to wear occupational Eye Protection even where mandatory Eye Protection areas have been specified. A study of Eye Protection practices in the New South Wales coal mining industry identified the number one issue in underground coal mine conditions as being fogging of Eye safety wear. Conventional anti-fog treatments and cleaners were considered by the miners as completely inadequate in these conditions. At the time of the study claims were being made for a new generation of lens treatments. These merited evaluation. Spectacles and goggles claimed to be fog resistant were obtained from manufacturers and suppliers and subjected to the test set out in BS EN 168 and the compliance criterion of BS EN 166. Some lenses claimed to be fog resistant failed the requirement, some new technology lenses showed arguably superior performance but failed the criterion of the standard. Modifications to the test procedure of BS EN 168 and acceptance criteria of BS EN 166 are proposed.

Related terms

Eye Protection - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts