Lin C-H, Hsu H-T, Chen P-Y, Huon L K, Lin Y-Z, Hung S-H
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Laryngol Otol. 2013 Aug;127(8):744-8. doi: 10.1017/S0022215113001424. Epub 2013 Jul 9.
To investigate and compare the performance of head mirrors and headlights during otolaryngological examination.
The illuminance and illumination field of each device were measured and compared. Visual identification and visual acuity were also measured, in 13 medical students and 10 otolaryngology specialists.
The illuminance (mean ± standard deviation) of the LumiView, Kimscope 1 W and Kimscope 3 W headlights and a standard head mirror were 352.3 ± 9, 92.3 ± 4.5, 438 ± 15.7 and 68.3 ± 1.2 lux, respectively. The illumination field of the head mirror (mean ± standard deviation) was 348 ± 29.8 grids, significantly greater than that of the Kimscope 3 W headlight (183 ± 9.2 grids) (p = 0.0017). The student group showed no statistically significant difference between visual identification with the best headlight and the head mirror (score means ± standard deviations: 56.2 ± 9 and 53.3 ± 14.1, respectively; p = 0.3). The expert group scored significantly higher for visual identification with head mirrors versus headlights (59.7 ± 3.3 vs 55.2 ± 5.8, respectively; p = 0.0035), but showed no difference for visual acuity.
Despite the advantages of headlight illumination, head mirrors provided better, shadow-free illumination. Despite no differences amongst students, head mirrors performed better than headlights in experienced hands.
研究并比较耳鼻喉科检查中额镜和头灯的性能。
测量并比较每种设备的照度和照明范围。还对13名医学生和10名耳鼻喉科专家进行了视觉识别和视力测量。
LumiView、Kimscope 1W和Kimscope 3W头灯以及标准额镜的照度（均值±标准差）分别为352.3±9、92.3±4.5、438±15.7和68.3±1.2勒克斯。额镜的照明范围（均值±标准差）为348±29.8格，显著大于Kimscope 3W头灯的照明范围（183±9.2格）（p = 0.0017）。学生组中，使用最佳头灯和额镜进行视觉识别时无统计学显著差异（得分均值±标准差分别为：56.2±9和53.3±14.1；p = 0.3）。专家组使用额镜进行视觉识别的得分显著高于头灯（分别为59.7±3.3和55.2±5.8；p = 0.0035），但在视力方面无差异。
尽管头灯照明有优势，但额镜提供了更好的无阴影照明。尽管学生之间无差异，但在经验丰富的人手中，额镜的表现优于头灯。
