Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T02:51:58.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Head mirror versus headlight: illumination, visual identification and visual acuity for otolaryngological examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

C-H Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
H-T Hsu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
P-Y Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
L K Huon
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Y-Z Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
S-H Hung*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Shih-Han Hung, Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wusing St, Sinyi District, Taipei City 110, Taiwan Fax: +886 2 27359903 E-mail: seedturtle@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate and compare the performance of head mirrors and headlights during otolaryngological examination.

Methods:

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.

Results:

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.

Conclusion:

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.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1ENT Today: An iconic tool: is there still a place for the head mirror? In: http://www.enttoday.org/details/article/836587/An_Iconic_Tool_Is_there_still_a_place_for_the_head_mirror.html [19 March 2012]Google Scholar
2Hannan, SA. The instrument that determined my practice. BMJ 2003;326:747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Mester, AF. Six great men in Hungarian otorhinolaryngology. Am J Otolaryngol 1982;3:6772CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Danilova, MV, Bondarko, VM. Foveal contour interactions and crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system. J Vis 2007;7:118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Rowlands, J, Mal, R, Thornton, M. Headlight or head mirror? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:601–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Sjostrand, FS. Color vision at low light intensity, dark adaptation, Purkinje shift, critical flicker frequency and the deterioration of vision at low illumination. Neurophysiology at the nanometer range of neural structure. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol 2003;35:117–27Google ScholarPubMed
7Hausner, HH. Human efficiency as a function of light and illumination. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1951;51:1166–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Perrig, S, Kazennikov, O, Wiesendanger, M. Time structure of a goal-directed bimanual skill and its dependence on task constraints. Behav Brain Res 1999;103:95104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed