Slashdot Mirror
New Smart Glasses Allow Nurses To See Veins Through Skin
Lucas123 writes "Epson and Evena Medical today unveiled a new smart-glass technology that allows nurses to see 'through' a patient's skin to the vasculature beneath in order to make intravenous placement easier. The Eyes-On Glasses System is based on Epson's Moverio Smart Glasses Technology, an Android-based, see-through wearable display launched earlier this year that allows users to interact with apps and games. The glasses use near-infrared light to highlight deoxygenated hemoglobin in a patient's veins and capture the images with two stereoscopic cameras. The cameras then project the vein images onto the see-through glass screens. The glasses can store the images and video and transfer them wirelessly to a patient's electronic health record, and they also come with dual built-in speakers for video conferencing."
Kids love cinemon toast crunch?
...that they don't have to play "Go Fish" in my arm every time I get an IV in, I'm all for it, unintended consequences be damned.
Had to go into the hospital for the first time in ages the other day, and it took about five or six sticks -- including the kind where you can see them feeling around for anything once the needle's already in you -- before they hit the vein. And I'm skinny, as well, at least in the places where they stick me. Can't begin to imagine what it's like if your veins are invisible.
I am sure that I saw an advert for this towards the back pages of my Fantastic Four comics circa 1982
. .
Haven't we seen stories in this vein before?
(Or not.)
From TFA:
That technology from Epson when applied to game, users do not put on those wearable display for hours and hours every single day, they only put them on when they play games.
On the other hand, nurses working in the hospitals may end up wearing the glasses which projects infrared lights many hours each days.
My question being --- Would prolonged exposure to infrared light poses any danger on the eyes of the wearer ?
Unlikely. IR light has a longer wavelength and thus less energy than normal "visible" light, this is why we can't see in the infrared - the photons are not energetic enough to cause a conformal change in one of the double bonds in rhodopsin. This also partial explains why we can't see in the UV spectrum. The only variable will be the intensity of the light potentially causing thermal damage, but I doubt this would be that powerful enough for that. In addition, starting IVs is not the only thing nurses do....I'd guestimate that it is only about 5% of their daily work load on the general med-surg floors (where most patients have an IV already) and probably no more than 10-15% of the ED RNs.
We already have technology that does this. We have hand-held devices that shine near-infrared light through the skin and make the veins show up just fine.
They have significant problems, which this system shares. Most importantly, they show *all* veins, including all the ones which can't be cannulated because they are too small, too fragile, or too badly scarred. You have to palpate (feel) the vein to assess whether it's suitable, and if you can palpate it, you don't need to see it at all.
Also, they really only work at all on caucasian skin.
Further, this system is kind of ridiculously expensive. Even though the prices have dropped on commodity displays, microprocessors, 3G and wifi, and all those bells and whistles, it's still a complex piece of gear. We may as well pay for a bedside ultrasound which costs no more, is more precise, and is useful for a lot more than just IV starts.
My impression is that the IR light is directed at the patient. It is probably mostly absorbed and converted to heat when it hits the skin, but the haemoglobin in veins close to the surface absorb differently from the surrounding tissue and makes the veins stand out. Whatever small amount of whatever wavelength it has transformed to after it has hit patients arm or other body part to be stuck, is reflected, recorded by cameras, and is projected on the lenses of the glasses. The way I read it, it is the projected images (like on a monitor or tv) that are viewed, likely as false colour or grey scale; not a full shot of IR pointed back at the wearer. So I would guess the answer is, not likely.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
So does visible light of similar intensity.
There is very little difference between near infrared and the visible spectrum. Just because our rods and cones don't react to the different wavelength doesn't make it any more dangerous. The exception to this rule are powerful near IR lasers that appear to the eye as faint red light sources and don't trigger pupil contraction and aversion reflexes.