W R Ries1, M A Clymer, L Reinisch. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2559, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A number of lasers are available for cutaneous periorbital surgery, yet not all eye shields are appropriate for all applications. We tested a variety of commercially available eye shields to assess their safety features. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six commercially available eye protectors were studied. A focused laser was incident upon the shield, and the intensity and exposure duration required for visible damage to the shield were measured. We then measured the temperature on the underside of the eye shield during exposure from the laser. Time-dependent temperature measurements were made with a type-T thermocouple fixed to the eye shield with silicon grease. RESULTS: Thermal response curves and rates of warming for each of the six eye shields were generated. Plastic shields showed significant thermal damage with most of the lasers tested. The metallic shields warmed more slowly and to a lesser degree. CONCLUSION: Overall, the metallic eye shields had the most acceptable safety profile. Many of the plastic shields exhibited significant thermal damage, and therefore we discourage their use in periorbital laser surgery.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A number of lasers are available for cutaneous periorbital surgery, yet not all eye shields are appropriate for all applications. We tested a variety of commercially available eye shields to assess their safety features. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six commercially available eye protectors were studied. A focused laser was incident upon the shield, and the intensity and exposure duration required for visible damage to the shield were measured. We then measured the temperature on the underside of the eye shield during exposure from the laser. Time-dependent temperature measurements were made with a type-T thermocouple fixed to the eye shield with silicon grease. RESULTS: Thermal response curves and rates of warming for each of the six eye shields were generated. Plastic shields showed significant thermal damage with most of the lasers tested. The metallic shields warmed more slowly and to a lesser degree. CONCLUSION: Overall, the metallic eye shields had the most acceptable safety profile. Many of the plastic shields exhibited significant thermal damage, and therefore we discourage their use in periorbital laser surgery.