Asunto(s)
Humanos , Optometría , Óptica y Fotónica , Anteojos , Dispositivos de Protección de los OjosRESUMEN
Introducción. En diciembre de 2019 en Wuhan, China, se presentó un brote de neumonía atípica generado por el virus SARS-CoV-2, el cual es un tipo de coronavirus causante de la enfermedad COVID-19, que se convirtió con el tiempo en una pandemia. En este contexto, el uso de los elementos de protección personal tomó un especial interés, en especial para la atención del trabajo de parto vaginal, dada la confusión en los círculos obstétricos respecto a la mejor forma de proteger al personal sanitario en dichos casos. El objetivo de este artículo de revisión es identificar cuáles son los elementos de protección personal indicados en la atención del parto vaginal y su correcto uso en tiempos de COVID-19. División de temas tratados. Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura accediendo a las bases de datos: PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Google Académico y sitios web como la Organización Mundial de la salud (OMS), Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés) y el Colegio Americano de Obstetras y Ginecólogos (ACOG), entre otros. Se usaron palabras claves como "Infecciones por Coronavirus", "Parto Normal", "Protección Personal", "Personal de Salud", "Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria" y "Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos". La literatura permitió identificar aspectos introductorios al tema, epidemiología, características generales de los elementos de protección personal, y los elementos específicos para el uso correcto en la atención del parto vaginal. Conclusiones. El trabajo de parto es considerado como un procedimiento generador de aerosoles, por lo que se recomienda principalmente el uso de tapabocas N95 o un respirador que ofrezca mayor protección para personal de salud en la atención del parto vaginal, con el fin de evitar la infección por SARS-CoV-2; sin embargo, se debe insistir en el uso adecuado y completo de los elementos de protección personal como lo son la bata quirúrgica, el gorro, el protector ocular y guantes, independientemente de la sintomatología de la paciente.
Introduction. In December 2019, in Wuhan, China, there was an outbreak of atypical pneumonia caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is a type of coronavirus causative of COVID-19, which overtime became a pandemic. In this context, the use of personal protective equipment is of special interest, especially when providing care in vaginal delivery, due to the confusion in obstetric circles regarding the best way to protect healthcare personnel in these cases. The objective of this review article is to identify which are the personal protective elements indicated for providing care in vaginal birth and their correct use during COVID-19. Division of Covered Topics. A narrative review of the literature was carried out, accessing the following databases: PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Google Scholar, and websites such as the World Health Organization (WHO), Center for the Control and Prevention of Diseases (CDC), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, among others. Keywords such as "Coronavirus Infections", "Normal Birth," Personal Protective Elements," "Healthcare Personnel", "Respiratory Protective Devices", and "Eye Protection Devices" were used. The literature allowed us to identify introductory aspects on the matter, epidemiology, general characteristics of personal protective elements, and the specific elements for correct use when providing care in vaginal birth. Conclusions. Labor is considered an aerosol-generating procedure. Therefore, the main recommendation is the use of an N95 mask or a respirator which allows for greater protection for healthcare personnel when assisting vaginal birth, in order to avoid infection due to SARS-CoV-2. However, there must be an adequate and complete use of personal protective equipment, such as surgical gowns, hats, eye protection and gloves, regardless of the patient's symptomatology
Introdução. Em dezembro de 2019 em Wuhan, na China, houve um surto de pneumonia atípica gerada pelo vírus SARS-CoV-2, que é um tipo de coronavírus que causa a doença COVID-19, que, com o tempo, acabou se tornando uma pandemia. Nesse contexto, o uso de elementos de proteção individual tornou-se de particular interesse, especialmente para a assistência do parto vaginal, dada a confusão nos círculos obstétricos quanto à melhor forma de proteger os profissionais da saúde nesses casos. O objetivo deste artigo de revisão é identificar os elementos de proteção individual indicados na assistência do parto vaginal e seu uso correto em tempos de COVID-19. Divisão de tópicos abordados. Foi realizada uma revisão narrativa da literatura acessando as seguintes bases de dados: PubMed, Medline, Elsevier, Google Scholar e sites como a Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças (CDC, na sigla em inglês) e o Colégio Americano de Obstetras e Ginecologistas (ACOG), entre outros. Foram utilizadas palavras-chave como "Infecções por Coronavírus", "Parto Normal", "Proteção Pessoal", "Pessoal de Saúde", "Dispositivos de Proteção Respiratória" e "Dispositivos de Proteção Ocular". A literatura permitiu identificar aspectos introdutórios ao tema, epidemiologia, características gerais dos elementos de proteção individual e elementos específicos para o uso correto na assistência do parto vaginal. Conclusões. O trabalho de parto é considerado um procedimento gerador de aerossóis, portanto, recomenda-se principalmente o uso de máscaras N95 ou um respirador que ofereça maior proteção para os profissionais de saúde na assistência do parto vaginal, a fim de evitar a infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2; no entanto, deve-se insistir no uso adequado e completo de elementos de proteção individual, como bata cirúrgica, touca, protetor ocular e luvas, independentemente dos sintomas do paciente.
Asunto(s)
Protección Personal , Ropa de Protección , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria , Personal de Salud , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Guantes Quirúrgicos , Parto NormalRESUMEN
Objetivo: Avaliar os cuidados de enfermagem com o protetor ocular em recém-nascidos. Método: Estudo investigatório descritivo, com abordagem qualitativa, realizado em hospital-escola, localizado na cidade de Fortaleza-Ceará, Brasil, janeiro a fevereiro de 2016. Participaram do estudo 15 enfermeiras que prestavam cuidados a recém-nascidos em fototerapia, na Unidade de Cuidados Intermediários e Terapia Intensiva. A coleta dos dados ocorreu por meio de entrevista não estruturada. Resultados: O protetor ocular é utilizado na prevenção de lesão na retina de recém-nascidos, sendo que existem riscos na utilização desse artefato e, para evitar danos, são realizados cuidados essenciais direcionados aos recém-nascidos sob fototerapia. Conclusão: Os cuidados que as enfermeiras prestam aos recém-nascidos são realizados de forma sistematizada, aliando humanização e tecnologia.(AU)
Objective: To evaluate nursing care with eye protection for newborns. Method: Descriptive investigative study, with a qualitative approach, carried out in a teaching hospital, located in the city of Fortaleza-Ceará, Brazil, January to February 2016. The study included 15 nurses who cared for newborns undergoing phototherapy, at the Intermediate Care and Intensive Care. Data collection took place through unstructured interviews. Results: The eye protector is used to prevent injury to the retina of newborns, and there are risks in the use of this artifact and, to avoid damage, essential care directed to newborns under phototherapy is performed. Conclusion: The care that nurses provide to newborns is carried out in a systematic way, combining humanization and technology.(AU)
Objetivo: Evaluar los cuidados de enfermería con protección ocular para recién nacidos. Método: Estudio descriptivo de investigación, con abordaje cualitativo, realizado en un hospital universitario, ubicado en la ciudad de Fortaleza-Ceará, Brasil, de enero a febrero de 2016. Participaron del estudio 15 enfermeras que asistieron a recién nacidos en fototerapia, en el Intermedio. Cuidados y cuidados intensivos. La recolección de datos se realizó mediante entrevistas no estructuradas. Resultados: El protector ocular se utiliza para prevenir daños en la retina del recién nacido, existen riesgos en el uso de este artefacto y, para evitar daños, se realizan cuidados esenciales dirigidos al recién nacido sometido a fototerapia. Conclusión: La atención que brindan las enfermeras al recién nacido se realiza de manera sistemática, combinando humanización y tecnología.(AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Recién Nacido , Fototerapia , Enfermería Neonatal , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Atención de Enfermería , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Neonatal , Lesiones Oculares/prevención & control , Recolección de Datos , Hospitales de EnseñanzaRESUMEN
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of wearing virtual reality head-mounted goggles (VR) on body sway in young adults. We run two experiments, in which we compared the body sway while standing during the conditions of 1) wearing and non-wearing VR with eyes-opened (experiment #1), 2) wearing and no-wearing VR with eyes-closed (experiment #2), and 3) wearing VR with eyes-opened when the scene was turned on and off (experiment #2). Forty-four (experiment #1) and fifteen (experiment #2) young adults were instructed to remain as still as possible on a force plate for 60-s and performed three trials in each quiet standing condition. The center of pressure (CoP) displacement, mean velocity, root mean square (RMS), area and median frequency of sway were calculated in both experiments. In the experiment #1, wearing VR condition with eyes-opened largely increased the AP and ML CoP displacement, AP mean velocity, AP and ML RMS, and area (p < 0.05) compared to non-wearing VR with eyes-opened. In the experiment #2, no differences were found for any conditions (eyes-closed and eyes-opened with turned on and off VR scene). In conclusion, wearing VR head-mounted goggles increased body sway of young adults during standing postural task, when the individuals were with eyes-opened. However, the effects of wearing VR head-mounted goggles on body sway disappeared when the individuals were with eyes-closed or the google scene was turned off the scene compared to not wearing VR head-mounted goggles with eyes-closed or turned on scene, respectively.
Asunto(s)
Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Equilibrio Postural/fisiología , Posición de Pie , Realidad Virtual , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is essential to avoid the COVID-19 spread to health care workers. Its use can be difficult, posing a high risk of contamination, mainly during doffing, then with the risk of becoming infected. METHODS: We conducted a prospective before-and-after design that used clinical simulation as a research methodology in a clinical simulation center of Colombia. A simulation-based educational intervention with two cases related to COVID-19 was proposed in the emergency room and the intensive care unit. We conducted A workshop for donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and a debriefing after the first case. RESULTS: In the pre-test, 100% of participants failed donning and doffing PPE, 98.4% were contaminated, only one-person did not contaminate out of. The mean cognitive load was high (7.43±0.9 points). In the post-test, 100% were successful in donning the PPE and 94.8% in doffing; only 9.8% were contaminated. The mean of the cognitive load was low (4.1±1.4 points), and the performance was high (7.9±1.1). Of the total, 73.8% of participants reported overload in the doffing. The most difficulties were in gown/overall, and N95 mask removal. DISCUSSION: The PPE donning and doffing is critical and may be changed significantly by active training. In responding to the current COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, activities of training in donning and doffing PPE would provide a means of training personnel, reducing the cognitive load and maybe the risk of contamination and infection of health care workers.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Personal de Salud/psicología , Memoria a Corto Plazo , Enfermedades Profesionales/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Entrenamiento Simulado , Adulto , COVID-19 , Contención de Riesgos Biológicos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Contaminación de Equipos , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Femenino , Guantes Protectores , Higiene de las Manos , Personal de Salud/educación , Humanos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Máscaras , Estudios Prospectivos , Ropa de Protección , Análisis y Desempeño de TareasRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHOD: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. RESULTS: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Personal de Salud , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Salud Laboral , Equipo de Protección Personal/provisión & distribución , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Adulto , África , Técnicos Medios en Salud , Asia , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Europa (Continente) , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Femenino , Guantes Protectores , Cefalea/etiología , Calor , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Máscaras/efectos adversos , Máscaras/provisión & distribución , Persona de Mediana Edad , América del Norte , Enfermeras y Enfermeros , Oceanía , Pandemias , Equipo de Protección Personal/efectos adversos , Admisión y Programación de Personal , Médicos , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria/efectos adversos , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria/provisión & distribución , SARS-CoV-2 , América del Sur , Vestimenta Quirúrgica , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , SedRESUMEN
PURPOSE: A significant transient increase in intraocular pressure in individuals wearing swimming goggles has been demonstrated in previous studies. These findings suggested that wearing swimming goggles could represent a significant risk factor for worsening of corneal parameters in patients with keratoconus who swim regularly. The aim of this study was to investigate corneal parameters in patients with keratoconus after wearing swimming goggles. METHODS: Comprehensive ocular examinations were performed on 74 eyes of 37 patients with keratoconus. Measurements of the corneal front keratometry values (Kflat, Ksteep, and Kmax), central corneal thickness, corneal apex thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, corneal volume, anterior chamber volume, anterior chamber depth, and iridocorneal angle were performed in outpatient clinics using a Pentacam® Scheimpflug camera (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) before the patients wore swimming goggles and after they wore swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min. A p-value of <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: The average values before and after wearing swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min were 52.72 ± 5.36, 52.64 ± 5.52, 52.62 ± 5.38, and 52.22 ± 4.86, respectively (p=0.257). The average values before and after wearing swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min were 46.01 ± 3.17, 46.09 ± 3.17, 46.06 ± 3.26, and 46.04 ± 3.17, respectively (p=0.426). The average values before and after wearing swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min were 49.02 ± 3.56, 49.06 ± 3.61, 49.08 ± 3.62, and 49.07 ± 3.61, respectively (p=0.750). No other corneal parameters showed changes after wearing swimming goggles (p>0.05). However, the anterior chamber volume markedly decreased after wearing swimming goggles (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that the short-term use of swimming goggles does not increase the risk of corneal parameter worsening in patients with keratoconus.
Asunto(s)
Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Queratocono , Córnea , Paquimetría Corneal , Topografía de la Córnea , Humanos , Natación , Tonometría OcularRESUMEN
ABSTRACT Purpose: A significant transient increase in intraocular pressure in individuals wearing swimming goggles has been demonstrated in previous studies. These findings suggested that wearing swimming goggles could represent a significant risk factor for worsening of corneal parameters in patients with keratoconus who swim regularly. The aim of this study was to investigate corneal parameters in patients with keratoconus after wearing swimming goggles. Methods: Comprehensive ocular examinations were performed on 74 eyes of 37 patients with keratoconus. Measurements of the corneal front keratometry values (Kflat, Ksteep, and Kmax), central corneal thickness, corneal apex thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, corneal volume, anterior chamber volume, anterior chamber depth, and iridocorneal angle were performed in outpatient clinics using a Pentacam® Scheimpflug camera (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) before the patients wore swimming goggles and after they wore swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min. A p-value of <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Results: The average values before and after wearing swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min were 52.72 ± 5.36, 52.64 ± 5.52, 52.62 ± 5.38, and 52.22 ± 4.86, respectively (p=0.257). The average values before and after wearing swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min were 46.01 ± 3.17, 46.09 ± 3.17, 46.06 ± 3.26, and 46.04 ± 3.17, respectively (p=0.426). The average values before and after wearing swimming goggles for 1, 10, and 20 min were 49.02 ± 3.56, 49.06 ± 3.61, 49.08 ± 3.62, and 49.07 ± 3.61, respectively (p=0.750). No other corneal parameters showed changes after wearing swimming goggles (p>0.05). However, the anterior chamber volume markedly decreased after wearing swimming goggles (p<0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggested that the short-term use of swimming goggles does not increase the risk of corneal parameter worsening in patients with keratoconus.
RESUMO Objetivo: Um aumento transitório significativo da pressão intraocular em indivíduos usando óculos de natação foi demonstrado em estudos anteriores. Esses achados sugerem que o uso de óculos de natação pode representar um fator de risco significativo para o agravamento dos parâmetros corneanos em pacientes com ceratocone que nadam regularmente. O objetivo deste estudo foi investigar os parâmetros corneanos em pacientes com ceratocone após o uso de óculos de natação. Métodos: Foram realizados exames oftalmológicos completos em 74 olhos de 37 pacientes com ceratocone. As medidas dos valores de ceratometria frontal da córnea (Kflat, Ksteep e Kmax), espessura corneana central, espessura apical da córnea, espessura corneana mais fina, volume da córnea, volume da câmara anterior, profundidade da câmara anterior e ângulo iridocorneano foram realizados em ambulatórios usando câmera Pentacam® Scheimpflug (Oculus, Wetzlar, Alemanha) antes dos pacientes usarem óculos de natação por 1, 10 e 20 min. Um valor p<0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. Resultados: Os valores médios de antes e após o uso de óculos de natação por 1, 10 e 20 min foram: 52,72 ± 5,36, 52,64 ± 5,52, 52,62 ± 5,38 e 52,22 ± 4,86, respectivamente (p=0,257). Os valores médios do (antes e após o uso de óculos de natação por 1, 10 e 20 min foram: 46,01 ± 3,17, 46,09 ± 3,17, 46,06 ± 3,26 e 46,04 ± 3,17, respectivamente (p=0,426). Os valores médios de antes e após o uso de óculos de natação por 1, 10 e 20 min foram: 49,02 ± 3,56, 49,06 ± 3,61, 49,08 ± 3,62 e 49,07 ± 3,61, respectivamente (p=0,750). Nenhum outro parâmetro da córnea apresentou alterações após o uso de óculos de natação (p>0,05). No entanto, o volume da câmara anterior diminuiu acentuadamente após o uso de óculos de natação (p<0,001). Conclusões: Esses achados sugerem que o uso de óculos de natação a curto prazo não aumenta o risco de piora dos parâmetros corneanos em pacientes com ceratocone.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Córnea , Topografía de la Córnea , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Paquimetría Corneal , Queratocono , Natación , Tonometría OcularAsunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Microcirugia/instrumentación , Neuroendoscopios , Procedimientos Neuroquirúrgicos/instrumentación , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humanos , Microcirugia/métodos , Procedimientos Neuroquirúrgicos/métodos , Equipo de Protección Personal , SARS-CoV-2 , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
INTRODUCCIÓN: Existe una pandemia actual causada por un Coronavirus similar a previos virus epidémicos como los coronavirus respiratorios del Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Severo (SARS-CoV) y del Coronavirus del Síndrome Respiratorio del Medio Oriente (MERS-CoV). Esto llevo a que la OMS declarara una emergencia de salud pública internacional y luego a una situación de pandemia. Como parte de la respuesta global a esta pandemia, varias organización como el Centro para el Control y Prevención de enfermedades de los Estados Unidos (CDC) han elaborado guias sobre como controlar esta enfermedad en entornos sanitarios. Para esto se basan en la experiencia adquirida con la epidemia tanto de los coronovarius SARS como de MERS. Los pacientes infectados parecen ser preferentemente mayores de 15 años, habiendo muy pocos infectados en niños en un análisis hecho de pacientes en China (solo 0.9% de los casos). La mayoría fueron hombres (58.1%). La mediana del periodo de incubación fue 7 días (rango intercuartil de 2 a 7). Los síntomas más comunes son fiebre (88,7%), y tos (67.8%). Aproximadamente 5% de los pacientes requieren unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCIs), y 1.4% murieron, siendo esta edad dependiente. Se sabe que el coronavirus SARS-1puede ser transmitido eficientemente en entornos sanitarios si los pacientes con este virus no son reconocidos inmediatamente, y las medidas de control no son aplicadas. Las medidas básicas de control son efectivas en prevenir la transmisión de SARS1 en entornos sanitarios. Dentro de las actividades prioritarias esta reforzar las prácticas de control de infecciones entre el personal de salud, desarrollar planes para tomar las precauciones necesarias en facilidades hospitalarias, y la detección temprana y aislamiento de los pacientes que podrían estar infectados con el coronavirus. En tal sentido, el objetivo de esta revisión rápida es generar evidencia a partir de la guias de control de infecciones publicada que evalúe los mecanismos de la transmisión de agentes infecciosos respiratorios en entornos sanitarios, y las medidas de precaucione neesarias, con énfasis en el aislamiento de los pacientes. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una revisión narrativa de las principales guías de control de infecciones relacionadas al Coronavirus SARS-1 (SARS-Cov-1) y al Coronavirus SARS-2 (SARS-Cov-2). Estas incluyeron principalmente los documentos del Centro para el Control y Prevención de enfermedades de los Estados Unidos (CDC) sobre aislamiento (7,8). Asimismo para la sección de estándares para las salas de aislamiento se revisaron los documentos pertinentes incluyendo la guías para diseño y construcción de hospitales del Facility Guidelines Institute de los Estados Unidos, que es la guía usada por el gobierno federal y gobiernos estatales de los Estados Unidos, asi como el Texto de Control de Infecciones y Epidemiologia de la Asociacion de profesionales en Control de Infecciones. Ademas esta revision esta suplementada con la ultima información sobre las características de trasnmision estudiadas en el nuevo SARS-Cov-2, como la publicada recientemente en el new England Journal of Medicine. RESULTADOS: Las opciones de hospitalización incluyen habitaciones individuales, habitaciones dobles, y habitaciones de camas múltiples. De estas, las habitaciones individuales siempre están indicadas para pacientes en Precauciones de Transmisión aérea, y son las habitaciones preferidas para Precauciones de Gotas aéreas, aunque en caso de falta de camas se pueden colocar a los pacientes en cohortes. Esta es la práctica de agrupar juntos a los pacientes infectados con el mismo organismo, y prevenir su contacto con otros pacientes no infectados. Es preferible no colocar pacientes severamente inmunocomprometidos dentro de las cohortes. Cohortes han sido usadas extensivamente para manejar brotes respiratorios como SARS. Colocar personal de salud en cohortes para cuidar un solo tipo de pacientes infectados, parece limitar la transmisión del agente, aunque es difícil de lograr cuando hay escasez de personal. Dentro de las precauciones generales para pacientes sospechosos o confirmados con agentes infecciosos, el CDC recomienda en general: - Precauciones Estandar que implican a) Higiene de Manos, b) Uso de equipo de protección personal dependiendo de las actividades a realizar, c) Prácticas seguras de Endovenosos, y d) Etiqueta/Higiene Respiratorio. - Limpieza y desinfección de todas las aéreas de pacientes es importante para superficies que se tocan, especialmente aquellas cercanas al paciente (agarraderas, cómodas, manijas, lavatorios, superficies y equipos). Desinfectantes o detergentes aprobados son la mejor manera de mantener la limpieza de las habitaciones. - Textiles sucios, incluido ropa de cama, toallas, y ropa de los pacientes pueden estar contaminas. Aunque la probabilidad de transmisión es baja, deben ser manejadas, transportadas y lavadas de manera segura. Medidas principales incluyen: a) No sacudir o manipular los textiles de manera que aerosolizen los agentes, b) Evitar contacto de los textiles con el cuerpo o la ropa de la persona encargada, c) Colocar los textiles en una bolsa de lavandería o contenedor designado. Mantenerlos cerrados para minimizar la dispersión de aerosoles.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria/normas , Ventiladores Mecánicos/normas , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos/normas , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Análisis Costo-EficienciaAsunto(s)
Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/diagnóstico , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos/efectos adversos , Enfermedades de los Párpados/diagnóstico , Natación , Adolescente , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/etiología , Enfermedades de los Párpados/etiología , Párpados/fisiopatología , Femenino , HumanosRESUMEN
The reduction in the occupational dose limit of the eye lens has created the need for optimising eye protection and dose assessment, in particular for interventional clinicians. Lead glasses are one of the protection tools for shielding the eyes, but assessing the eye lens dose when these are in place remains challenging. In this study, we evaluated the impact of the position of H p (3) dosemeters on the estimated eye lens dose when lead glasses are used in interventional settings. Using the Monte Carlo method (MCNPX), an interventional cardiology setup was simulated for two models of lead glasses, five beam projections and two patient access routes. H p (3) dosemeters were placed at several positions on the operator and the obtained dose was compared to the dose to the sensitive part of the eye lens (H lens). Furthermore, to reproduce an experimental setup, a reference dosemeter, H p (3)ref, was placed on the surface of the eye. The dose measured by H p (3)ref was, on average, only 60% of H lens. Dosemeters placed on the glasses, under their shielding, underestimated H lens for all parameters considered, by from 10% up to 90%. Conversely, dosemeters placed on the head or on the glasses, over their shielding, overestimated H lens, on average, up to 60%. The presence or lack of side shielding in lead glasses affected mostly dosemeters placed on the forehead, at the left side. Results suggest that both use of a correction factor of 0.5 to account for the presence of lead glasses in doses measured outside their shielding and placing an eye lens dosemeter immediately beneath the lenses of lead glasses may lead to the underestimation of the eye lens dose. Most suitable positions for eye lens dose assessment were on the skin, unshielded by the glasses or close to the eye, with no correction to the dose measured.
Asunto(s)
Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Cristalino/efectos de la radiación , Exposición Profesional/análisis , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Radiología Intervencionista , Humanos , Plomo , Método de Montecarlo , Dosis de Radiación , Dosímetros de RadiaciónAsunto(s)
Humanos , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Distancia Psicológica , Aislamiento Social , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Betacoronavirus , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , MáscarasRESUMEN
Abstract Background: Posterior subcapsular cataract is a tissue reaction commonly found among professionals exposed to ionizing radiation. Objective: To assess the prevalence of cataract in professionals working in hemodynamics in Brazil. Methods: Professionals exposed to ionizing radiation (group 1, G1) underwent slit lamp examination with a biomicroscope for lens examination and compared with non-exposed subjects (group 2, G2). Ophthalmologic findings were described and classified by opacity degree and localization using the Lens Opacities Classification System III. Both groups answered a questionnaire on work and health conditions to investigate the presence of risk factors for cataract. The level of significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05). Results: A total of 112 volunteers of G1, mean age of 44.95 (±10.23) years, and 88 volunteers of G2, mean age of 48.07 (±12.18) years were evaluated; 75.2% of G1 and 85.2% of G2 were physicians. Statistical analysis between G1 and G2 showed a prevalence of posterior subcapsular cataract of 13% and 2% in G1 and G2, respectively (0.0081). Considering physicians only, 38% of G1 and 15% of G2 had cataract, with the prevalence of posterior subcapsular cataract of 13% and 3%, respectively (p = 0.0176). Among non-physicians, no difference was found in the prevalence of cataract (by types). Conclusions: Cataract was more prevalent in professionals exposed to ionizing radiation, with posterior subcapsular cataract the most frequent finding.
Resumo Fundamento: A catarata subcapsular posterior é uma reação tecidual encontrada com frequência nos profissionais expostos à radiação ionizante. Objetivo: Avaliar a prevalência de catarata nos profissionais que atuam na área de hemodinâmica no Brasil. Métodos: Profissionais expostos à radiação ionizante (grupo 1, G1) foram submetidos ao exame biomicroscópico com lâmpada de fenda para avaliação do cristalino, e comparados aos não expostos (grupo 2, G2). Os achados foram descritos e classificados quanto ao grau de opacidade e localização por meio do Lens opacities classification system III. Ambos os grupos responderam questionário sobre condições de trabalho e de saúde para afastar fatores de risco para catarata, e foram comparados quanto aos achados. Foi utilizado um nível de significância de 5% (p < 0,05). Resultados: Foram avaliados 112 voluntários (G1) com média de idade 44,95 (±10,23) anos e 88 voluntários (G2) com média de 48,07 (±12,18) anos. Desses, 75,2% (G1) e 85,2% (G2) eram médicos. A análise estatística entre os grupos G1 e G2 mostrou uma prevalência da catarata no grupo G1 de 33% comparada ao G2 de 16% (p = 0,0058), sendo a catarata subcapsular posterior presente em 13% no G1 e 2% no G2 (p = 0,0081). Considerando apenas os médicos, 38% no G1 e 15% no G2 (p = 0,0011) apresentaram catarata, sendo a subcapsular posterior 13% e 3% (p = 0,0176), respectivamente. No grupo dos profissionais não médicos, não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa na prevalência dos achados oftalmológicos. Conclusões: A catarata esteve mais presente no grupo de profissionais expostos à radiação ionizante, sendo que a catarata subcapsular posterior foi o dano tecidual mais encontrado.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Catarata/epidemiología , Exposición a la Radiación/efectos adversos , Cardiólogos/estadística & datos numéricos , Cristalino/efectos de la radiación , Enfermedades Profesionales/epidemiología , Radiación Ionizante , Catarata/etiología , Brasil/epidemiología , Prevalencia , Factores de Riesgo , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Estadísticas no Paramétricas , Exposición a la Radiación/estadística & datos numéricos , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos/estadística & datos numéricos , Hemodinámica , Enfermedades Profesionales/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Posterior subcapsular cataract is a tissue reaction commonly found among professionals exposed to ionizing radiation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of cataract in professionals working in hemodynamics in Brazil. METHODS: Professionals exposed to ionizing radiation (group 1, G1) underwent slit lamp examination with a biomicroscope for lens examination and compared with non-exposed subjects (group 2, G2). Ophthalmologic findings were described and classified by opacity degree and localization using the Lens Opacities Classification System III. Both groups answered a questionnaire on work and health conditions to investigate the presence of risk factors for cataract. The level of significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 112 volunteers of G1, mean age of 44.95 (±10.23) years, and 88 volunteers of G2, mean age of 48.07 (±12.18) years were evaluated; 75.2% of G1 and 85.2% of G2 were physicians. Statistical analysis between G1 and G2 showed a prevalence of posterior subcapsular cataract of 13% and 2% in G1 and G2, respectively (0.0081). Considering physicians only, 38% of G1 and 15% of G2 had cataract, with the prevalence of posterior subcapsular cataract of 13% and 3%, respectively (p = 0.0176). Among non-physicians, no difference was found in the prevalence of cataract (by types). CONCLUSIONS: Cataract was more prevalent in professionals exposed to ionizing radiation, with posterior subcapsular cataract the most frequent finding.
Asunto(s)
Cardiólogos/estadística & datos numéricos , Catarata/epidemiología , Cristalino/efectos de la radiación , Enfermedades Profesionales/epidemiología , Exposición a la Radiación/efectos adversos , Adulto , Anciano , Brasil/epidemiología , Catarata/etiología , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Hemodinámica , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermedades Profesionales/etiología , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Prevalencia , Exposición a la Radiación/estadística & datos numéricos , Radiación Ionizante , Factores de Riesgo , Estadísticas no ParamétricasRESUMEN
The objective of this article is to present initial occupational dose values using digital active personal dosimeters for medical staff during adult interventional cardiology procedures in a public hospital in Chile. Personal dose equivalent Hp(10) over the lead apron of physician, nurse and radiographer were measured during 59 procedures. Mean values of occupational dose Hp(10) per procedure were 47.6, 6.2 and 4.3 µSv for physician, nurse and radiographer, respectively. If no protective tools are used, physician dose can exceed the new eye lens dose limit.
Asunto(s)
Cardiología , Exposición Profesional/análisis , Exposición a la Radiación/análisis , Radiografía Intervencional , Chile , Angiografía Coronaria , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Fluoroscopía , Humanos , Cristalino/efectos de la radiación , Ropa de Protección , Dosis de RadiaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Describe the ophthalmological sequelae of patients diagnosed with blunt eye injury by paintball. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were a total 14 cases with a diagnosis of blunt trauma by paintball were treated at the ophthalmology emergency department of the Barraquer Clinic in Bogotá, Colombia. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination with their respective controls according to their outcome. RESULTS: The frequency of eye trauma by paintball was 3.01%. Fourteen eyes were evaluated, age range from 9 to 49 years. Cases were unilateral, 1 woman and 13 men, initial visual acuity less than 20/30 in 12 eyes. Only 5 eyes progressed satisfactorily, and 3 were surgically intervened. The cases that did not show any improvement in visual acuity were related to posterior pole problems, with the most frequent being macular alterations, choroidal rupture, choroidal detachment, retinal tear, and retinal folds. In 3eyes, clinical improvement of visual acuity was evidenced secondary to haemorrhagic processes that resolved with medical treatment. One of them underwent surgical treatment of the lens with an intraocular lens implant. In 2eyes, the visual recovery was very satisfactory and 100% in another. CONCLUSION: Paintball has increased as a sport and recreational activity, where paint projectiles are fired with compressed air weapons. It carries risks of suffering various trauma that can lead to catastrophic episodes, in terms of visual health, and repercussions on the quality of life of those affected.
Asunto(s)
Traumatismos en Atletas/complicaciones , Lesiones Oculares/complicaciones , Heridas no Penetrantes/complicaciones , Adolescente , Adulto , Traumatismos en Atletas/prevención & control , Traumatismos en Atletas/cirugía , Niño , Coroides/lesiones , Hemorragia del Ojo/etiología , Hemorragia del Ojo/terapia , Lesiones Oculares/prevención & control , Lesiones Oculares/cirugía , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos , Femenino , Humanos , Implantación de Lentes Intraoculares , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Desprendimiento de Retina/etiología , Desprendimiento de Retina/terapia , Rotura/etiología , Rotura/terapia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Heridas no Penetrantes/cirugía , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
The high irradiance and the different emission spectra from contemporary light curing units (LCU) may cause ocular damage. This study evaluated the ability of 15 eye protection filters: 2 glasses, 1 paddle design, and 12 dedicated filters to block out harmful light from a monowave (HP-3M ESPE) and a broad-spectrum (Valo, Ultradent) LED LCU. Using the anterior sensor in the MARC-Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics) the irradiance that was delivered through different eye protection filters was measured three times. The LCUs delivered a similar irradiance to the top of the filter. The mean values of the light that passed through the filters as percent of the original irradiance were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a= 0.05). The emission spectra from the LCUs and through the filters were also obtained. Two-way ANOVA showed that the interaction between protective filters and LCUs significantly influenced the amount of light transmitted (p< 0.001). Tukey test showed that the amount of light transmitted through the protective filters when using the HP-3M-ESPE was significantly greater compared to when using the Valo, irrespective of the protective filter tested. When using the HP-3M-ESPE, the Glasses filter allowed significantly more light through, followed by XL 3000, ORTUS, Google Professional, Gnatus filters. The Valo filter was the most effective at blocking out the harmful light. Some protective filters were less effective at blocking the lower wavelengths of light (<420 nm). However, even in the worst scenario, the filters were able to block at least 97% of the irradiance.
Asunto(s)
Luces de Curación Dental/efectos adversos , Dispositivos de Protección de los Ojos/normas , Análisis de Varianza , Humanos , Óptica y FotónicaRESUMEN
Abstract The high irradiance and the different emission spectra from contemporary light curing units (LCU) may cause ocular damage. This study evaluated the ability of 15 eye protection filters: 2 glasses, 1 paddle design, and 12 dedicated filters to block out harmful light from a monowave (HP-3M ESPE) and a broad-spectrum (Valo, Ultradent) LED LCU. Using the anterior sensor in the MARC-Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics) the irradiance that was delivered through different eye protection filters was measured three times. The LCUs delivered a similar irradiance to the top of the filter. The mean values of the light that passed through the filters as percent of the original irradiance were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a= 0.05). The emission spectra from the LCUs and through the filters were also obtained. Two-way ANOVA showed that the interaction between protective filters and LCUs significantly influenced the amount of light transmitted (p< 0.001). Tukey test showed that the amount of light transmitted through the protective filters when using the HP-3M-ESPE was significantly greater compared to when using the Valo, irrespective of the protective filter tested. When using the HP-3M-ESPE, the Glasses filter allowed significantly more light through, followed by XL 3000, ORTUS, Google Professional, Gnatus filters. The Valo filter was the most effective at blocking out the harmful light. Some protective filters were less effective at blocking the lower wavelengths of light (<420 nm). However, even in the worst scenario, the filters were able to block at least 97% of the irradiance.
Resumo A alta irradiância e diferentes espectros de luz emitidos por aparelhos fotopolimerizadores (Fp) podem causar danos oculares. Este estudo avaliou a capacidade de 15 filtros de proteção ocular em bloquear a luz prejudicial de um Fp convencional (HP-3M ESPE) e outro de largo espectro (Valo, Ultradent). Utilizando sensor anterior do equioamento MARC-Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics inc.) a irradiância que passou através dos diferentes filtros protetores foi mensuradas três vezes. Os valores médios da irradiância que passaram pelos filtros foram analisados usando Análise de variância fatorial e pelo teste de Tukey (a= 0.05). O espetro emitido dos Fps através dos filtros também foi obtido. A análise de variância mostrou que a interação entre os filtros protetores e Fps influenciou significantemente a quantidade de luz transmitida (p<0,001). O teste de Tukey mostrou que a quantidade que luz transmitida através dos protetores oculares quando usado o HP-3M ESPE foi significantemente maior quando comparado aos valores para o Valo, independentemente do filtro testado. Quando foi utilizado a fonte de luz HP-3M ESPE, o filtro de proteção ocular permitiu significativamente maior passagem de luz, seguido por XL 3000, ORTUS, Google Professional, e pelo filtro Gnatus. O filtro do Valo foi o mais eficiente ao bloquear a luz prejudicial. Alguns filtros foram menos eficazes ao bloquear menores comprimentos de onde (<420 nm). No entanto, mesmo no pior cenário dos resultados deste estudo, os filtros foram capazes de bloquear ao menos 97% da irradiância emitida pelas fontes de luz testadas.