Perceptions and Practice Patterns of Holmium Laser Goggles in Endourological Procedures: An Unnecessary Evil?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The holmium laser is used increasingly for a wide array of urological procedures. Laser safety goggles are mandatory at many centers for individuals within the nominal hazard zone, as set out by the institution. Recent ex vivo studies suggest standard eye wear may be equally as protective. We sought to evaluate the perceptions and practice patterns of laser safety goggles in urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 24-question survey was sent out through e-mail to an international e-mail list of ∼2000 urologists that were members of the Endourological Society. Data were collected anonymously using Survey Monkey. RESULTS: A total of 264 (14%) urologists completed the survey. Thirty-four percent worked in the community, whereas 63% worked at an academic institution. Ninety-seven percent routinely used the holmium laser. The most common uses were lithotripsy (99%), tissue incision (71%), tumor ablation (58%), and prostate ablation (26%). Formal laser training and institutional laser safety policies were reported in 76% and 64%, respectively. Forty percent of respondents routinely wore laser safety goggles. Laser adverse events were witnessed by 19%, but there were no eye injuries reported. Seventy percent of surgeons felt that laser safety goggles may impair their vision. When presented with the information that regular eye glasses may be as effective as laser goggles for preventing harm, the majority (86%) would opt for regular eye wear. CONCLUSIONS: Laser safety eyewear practice patterns vary greatly. Many centers have adopted policies for universal mandatory laser goggles in the operating room. With over two thirds of surgeons suggesting laser goggles impair their vision, and recent literature suggesting regular eye wear is equivalent in preventing laser-associated eye injuries, laser goggle safety policies should be updated to better match the potential hazards inherent to the device.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".