ArticlePloS one2023
Preclinical safety evaluation of continuous UV-A lighting in an operative setting.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erasable FAP Targeted Spray-On Probe for Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Ultraviolet-C Light Emitter as a Method for Reducing Bacterial Contamination of Ophthalmic Instruments.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGermicidal ultraviolet (UV-C) light has been shown as an effective modality for disinfection in laboratory settings and in the operative room. Traditionally, short-wavelength UV-C devices, which have previously been shown to cause DNA damage, are utilized only for disinfection in pre- and post-operative settings and are not continuously active during operations. Continuous use of intraoperative UV light has potential to decrease pathogens and subsequent surgical site infections (SSIs), which arise in approximately 5-15% of operative cases. SSIs are a significant determinant of patient morbidity, readmission rates, and overall cost. Therefore, a method of UV light disinfection with a low risk of DNA damage is needed so that greater antimicrobial protection can be afforded to patients during the entirety of their surgical procedures. A new disinfection device that harnesses longer-wavelength UV-A light to disinfect the surgical field throughout the entirety of the procedure, including pre- and post-operation has been developed.
methodsThis study aimed to determine if UV-A light administered intraoperatively was safe, as defined by the minimal presence of DNA damage and safe amounts of reflection upon medical personnel. Using in vitro models, we examined the differential impacts of UV-C and UV-A light on DNA damage and repair pathways. In a murine model, we looked at the production of DNA damage photoproduction in relation to UV-A versus UV-C exposure.
resultsOur results show UV-A light does not induce a significant amount of DNA damage at the cellular or tissue level. Furthermore, a preclinical porcine study showed that surgical personnel were exposed to safe levels of UV-A irradiance from an overhead UV-A light used during an operation. The amount of UV-A transmitted through surgical personal protective equipment (PPE) also remained within safe levels.
conclusionsIn conclusion, we found that UV-A may be safe for intraoperative use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.