Laser pointers: the facts, media hype, and hysteria

Mensah, Evelyn; Vafidis, Gilli; Marshall, John

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)79359-4

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The preponderance of left eye involvement is likely to be a chance finding and the assailant was male in all cases. The incidence of punctate epithelial damage (5/14 cases) is interesting, but we would agree with Mensah et al , who described six cases in April, 1998, that this is most likely to have occurred from eye rubbing, as the cornea is transparent to diode wavelengths 2. Interestingly, the three patients in our survey who admitted to eye rubbing but lacked corneal signs all attended casualty after 24 hours and we can only speculate that these signs may have been present if they had been examined earlier.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Laser pointers revisited: a survey of 14 patients attending casualty at the Bristol Eye Hospital

Sethi

Grey

Hart

1999

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims-The largest clinical series of laser pointer exposures to date is described, to document any long term visual sequelae and assess objectively the visual threat from transient ocular exposure. Methods-14 cases were collected prospectively and triaged by ophthalmic nurses before referral to an ophthalmologist for a complete ophthalmic examination. Regardless of the need for clinical follow up, all patients were contacted by telephone at a mean interval of 10.5 months following exposure to inquire about new or persisting symptoms. Results-11/14 cases presented within 24 hours of exposure and 5/14 incidents were reported to the police. Reduced acuity in the aVected eye compared with the contralateral were documented in 5/14 cases. The commonest physical sign was a punctate epitheliopathy, seen in 5/14 cases, and the commonest symptom was ocular discomfort, reported by 11/14 patients. There were no consistent retinal findings. Follow up by telephone survey revealed that two patients were wearing new glasses, but had not been refracted before the exposure; one had intermittent ocular discomfort; the remaining 11 were asymptomatic. Conclusions-This study is reassuring to the ophthalmology community and the general public in failing to demonstrate consistent, long term damaging eVects of transient ocular exposure to laser pointer beams.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Laser pointers revisited: a survey of 14 patients attending casualty at the Bristol Eye Hospital

Sethi

Grey

Hart

1999

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The quantitative risk assessment depends not only on the nature of the risk but also the frequency of the exposure which makes it more likely to cause damage. The imaging studies to date are inconclusive in certain circumstances to actually quantify or even in certain cases identify the nature or extent of the damage [1][2][3]. There are only a few studies regarding the harmful effects of red and even less green lasers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser Pointer Induced Foveal Injury

Qureshi

2016

AOVS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These complaints are often associated with alleged laser pointer injury, but are not substantiated by science. 18,22 In addition, chronic pain is not a symptom of clinical, intentional, or unintentional ocular laser injury because there are no pain receptors in the retina (although a Class 4 laser, which are not available to consumers, can cause transient pain from heat conduction to the choroid). 18,23 …”

Section: Emergency Physicians and Laser Injuriesmentioning

confidence: 99%