ABSTRACT
Introduction: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is part of the work routine of health professionals, especially during pandemics. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of PPE became constant for long working hours, resulting in adverse effects on the health of professionals, especially headache. Objective: In this review, we explore the scientific literature on headache associated with prolonged use of PPE during the coronavirus pandemic. Method: This is a narrative literature review conducted through the PubMed and Web of Science databases according to the following MeSH descriptors: "Face shield", "Headache" and "Covid-19". Articles that analyzed the presence of headache and other adverse events in health professionals in prolonged use of PPE were included. Results: The included studies point to headache as the most prevalent adverse event, which may be a new headache or the worsening of a previous headache. Other effects were also found, such as pressure marks on the skin, hyperemia in contact areas; suffocation; reduced concentration and excessive sweating. Conclusion: The use of PPE for long periods can cause headaches due to external pressure, in addition to other unwanted events.These effects reveal the importance of studies to make PPE more efficient, ensuring protection for the individual without causing discomfort.
Introdução: Os Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPI) fazem parte da rotina de trabalho dos profissionais de saúde, principalmente durante as pandemias. Durante a pandemia da Covid-19, o uso de EPI tornou-se constante durante longas jornadas de trabalho, resultando em efeitos adversos à saúde dos profissionais, principalmente cefaleia. Objetivo: Nesta revisão, exploramos a literatura científica sobre cefaleia associada ao uso prolongado de EPI durante a pandemia do coronavírus. Método: Trata-se de uma revisão narrativa da literatura realizada por meio das bases de dados PubMed e Web of Science segundo os seguintes descritores MeSH: "Face Shield", "Headache" e "Covid-19". Foram incluídos artigos que analisaram a presença de cefaleia e outros eventos adversos em profissionais de saúde em uso prolongado de EPI. Resultados: Os estudos incluídos apontam a cefaleia como o evento adverso mais prevalente, podendo ser uma nova cefaleia ou o agravamento de uma cefaleia anterior. Também foram encontrados outros efeitos, como marcas de pressão na pele, hiperemia nas áreas de contato; asfixia; concentração reduzida e transpiração excessiva. Conclusão: O uso de EPI por longos períodos pode causar dores de cabeça por pressão externa, além de outros eventos indesejados. Esses efeitos revelam a importância de estudos para tornar os EPI mais eficientes, garantindo proteção ao indivíduo sem causar desconforto.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Investigating the effect of different face masks on dry eye disease (DED) among healthcare workers during the COVID?19 pandemic. Methods: This was a comparative, cross?sectional study. Participants were included into two groups: group 1 (n = 30) wore surgical masks, and group 2 (n = 30) wore N95 masks with face shields. Demographic and ocular surface disease index questionnaires (OSDI) were performed. In addition, Tear break?up time (TBUT), corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining, and meibography to assess meibomian gland loss (MGL) were performed on all participants. Independent T?test was used to compare continuous parameters and Chi?square test for categorical variables. The relationship between continuous variables was tested using bivariate Pearson correlation. Results: Sixty healthcare workers participated in this study (36 females and 24 males). The mean (±SD) age of the surgical mask and N95 groups was 35.33 (±14.94) and 36.63 (±10.64) years, respectively. Both masks caused dryness according to TBUT, MGL, and OSDI scores. DED per DEWS II definition was observed in 14 (46.7%) and 16 (53.3%) patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Comparing the two groups, N95 mask caused significantly more dryness according to TBUT (P = 0.042) and fluorescein staining (P = 0.038 for the right eye and P = 0.015 for the left eye). Conclusion: Physicians should be aware of the potential dry eye signs secondary to face mask wear during the COVID?19 pandemic. Further attention should be taken in patients who suffer from preexisting dry eye syndrome and in patients who undergo intraocular operations
ABSTRACT
COVID -19 is causing plenty of deaths in India as well as globally andmany of them are health care workers (HCWs).As per data given by IMA 744 MBBS doctors have been died due to Covid–19 till 4 February 20213.As this disease transmitted between person to person by respiratory droplets hence mask hygiene is very important effective preventive measure for HCWs. In market due to high demand, much different type of masks is available with different specifications. Some of them are from Indian origin and many of them are procured from foreign. Many of them are not effective to safeguard health care workers against COVID 19 infection2. Hence this paper will discuss different country specific standards of masks in relation to SARS COV-2 as well as home based disinfection method of masks. In market many masks are available and most of them are sub-standard and making falsely claim of N95. Most of them are not able to protect Health Care Workers from the infection of SARS COV-2. Hence in this paper will examine different countries specific standard of mask with respect to size of SARS COV-2. US standard N95 masks will give desire level of protection against SARS COV-2. Conclusion:NIOSH certified N95 or N99 or N100 mask should be given priority over other counties N95 equivalent masks. Chinese masks GB2626-2006 are least recommended among all other countries N95 equivalent masks6.