Respiratory Protective Devices

This discussion attempts to organize and analyze the clinical purpose of various technologies developed by medical electron accelerators from the development history and clinical needs of radiotherapy products, so as to avoid the troubles caused by specific technical details and summarize the development of medical accelerators. Directly, the study provides differentiated development ideas for the development of domestic medical accelerators and ways and means to determine the dimensions of differentiated development.
Particle Accelerators ; Protective Devices

Humans ; Occupational Health ; Protective Devices

The article introduces a new kind of waterproof equipment for endoscope. The equipment can resolve the problem that the endoscope's ocular and camera are always interfered by the Backstreaming liquid while performing surgical operation. The equipment is made up of three parts, which are ring-shaped locking structure, obturating ring and waterproof plastic sheath. Using the equipment can achieve the purpose of protecting the endoscope's ocular and camera effectively.
Endoscopes ; Equipment Design ; Protective Devices

Objective: To explore the occupational protective effect of different protective devices on the operators during manual cleaning and oiling of dental handpieces, and to provide a basis for the selection of appropriate protective methods. Methods: From November 2020 to December 2021, 20 high-speed dental handpieces of the same brand were selected and randomly divided into disposable protective bag group and small aerosol safety cabinet group by drawing lots, with 10 in each group. After recording the model, they were distributed to the clinical fixed consulting room for use, and were collected by specially-assigned personnel every day for manual cleaning under the protection of the two devices. By measuring the number of airborne colonies, the concentrations of particulate matter and the satisfaction of operators, the occupational protection effect of the two protective devices on operators was evaluated. Results: Under the protection of the two devices, the average number of airborne colonies after operation was less than 1 CFU/ml. When no protective device was used, the number concentration of particulate matter produced during operation was (21595.70±8164.26) pieces/cm(3). The number concentrations of particles produced by disposable protective bag group [ (6800.24±515.05) pieces/cm(3)] and small aerosol safety cabinet group [ (5797.15±790.50) pieces/cm(3)] were significantly lower than those without any protective device (P<0.001). The number concentration of particle matter of small aerosol safety cabinet group was significantly lower than that of disposable protective bag group (P<0.001). In the satisfaction evaluation of operators, small aerosol safety cabinet group [ (3.53±0.82) points] was significantly better than disposable protective bag group [ (2.23±1.10) points] (P<0.001) . Conclusion: The use of small aerosol safety cabinet during manual cleaning and oiling of dental handpieces has good protective effect, superior safety performance and strong clinical applicability, and has advantages in occupational protection of clinical operators.
Aerosols ; Particulate Matter ; Protective Devices

Background. The use of face shield in addition to face mask is thought to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by blocking respiratory droplets and by preventing one from touching facial orifices.

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of face mask with face shield, compared to face mask alone, in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites as of 30 September 2021. We included studies that used face shield with face mask versus face mask alone to prevent COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects.

Results. There is no available direct evidence for face shield plus face mask versus face mask alone in the general public. Five (5) observational studies with very low certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and indirectness were included. Participants in all the studies were health care workers (HCWs) who used the face shield with their standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Four (4) of the studies were in the hospital setting (three case control studies, one pre- and post-surveillance study); one was done in the community (one pre- and post-surveillance study) in which HCWs visited the residence of the contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The case control studies done in the hospital setting showed a trend toward benefit with the use of face shield or goggle but this was inconclusive (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) while the pre- and post-surveillance study showed significant benefit when face shield (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37) use became a requirement for HCWs upon hospital entry. In the study done in the community setting, significant protection for HCWs was noted with the use of face shield (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.69) but the results were limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusion. In the hospital setting, there was a lower likelihood of COVID-19 infection in HCWs who used a face shield or goggles on top of their PPE. For the general public in the community, there is presently no study on the use of face shield in addition to the face mask to prevent COVID-19 infection.

Various operative techniques are available for the treatment of craniosynostosis. The patient's age at presentation is one of the most important factors in the determination of the surgical modality. Minimally invasive suturectomy and postoperative helmet therapy may be performed for relatively young infants, whose age is younger than 6 months. It relies upon the potential for rapid brain growth in this age group. Its minimal invasiveness is also advantageous. In this article, we review the advantages and limitations of minimally invasive suturectomy followed by helmet therapy for the treatment of craniosynostosis.
Brain ; Craniosynostoses ; Head Protective Devices* ; Humans ; Infant

Humans ; Occupational Health ; Protective Devices ; utilization ; Welding

OBJECTIVE: The authors developed a stereotactic device for irradiation of small animals with Leksell Gamma Knife(R) Model C. Development and verification procedures were described in this article. METHODS: The device was designed to satisfy three requirements. The mechanical accuracy in positioning was to be managed within 0.5 mm. The strength of the device and structure were to be compromised to provide enough strength to hold a small animal during irradiation and to interfere the gamma ray beam as little as possible. The device was to be used in combination with the Leksell G-frame(R) and KOPF(R) rat adaptor. The irradiation point was determined by separate imaging sequences such as plain X-ray images. RESULTS: The absolute dose rate with the device in a Leksell Gamma Knife was 3.7% less than the value calculated from Leksell Gamma Plan(R). The dose distributions measured with GAFCHROMIC(R) MD-55 film corresponded to those of Leksell Gamma Plan(R) within acceptable range. The device was used in a series of rat experiments with a 4 mm helmet of Leksell Gamma Knife. CONCLUSION: A stereotactic device for irradiation of small animals with Leksell Gamma Knife Model C has been developed so that it fulfilled above requirements. Absorbed dose and dose distribution at the center of a Gamma Knife helmet are in acceptable ranges. The device provides enough accuracy for stereotactic irradiation with acceptable practicality.
Animals ; Gamma Rays ; Head Protective Devices ; Rats

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A rotation chair test has been used to evaluate the function of the horizontal semicircular canals. Currently, two chair systems according to the presence of cylindrical darkroom are used in a clinic setting. However, it has not been thoroughly investigated whether one system is superior to the other system or not. In this study, we aimed to compare test outcomes and subject convenience between two systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects with no history of otologic disease were enrolled. Subjects were tested with two systems: system [A] with a cylindrical chamber and system [B] with no chamber. The results of sinusoidal harmonic acceleration (SHA), step velocity (SV), and visual fixation (VFX) tests were compared between the systems. Subject convenience was assessed with a questionnaire survey and results were compared between the systems. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in gain or asymmetry in SHA test between the systems. However, the phase of system [A] was significantly lower than that of system [B] at 0.16 Hz. There was no significant difference between the systems in directional preponderance (DP) gain or DP time constant. Regarding the VFX test, gain was higher in system [A] than system [B]. Subjects reported less stuffiness and less anxiety with system [B] than system [A], while preferring the system [A] goggles. CONCLUSIONS: A rotation chair system without a darkroom can provide a more comfortable experience for subjects in terms of stuffiness and anxiety, while showing comparable results in SHA and SV tests with a darkroom system.
Acceleration ; Anxiety ; Ear Diseases ; Eye Protective Devices ; Semicircular Canals