Patient safety
A real-world safety solution The difficulties associated with using manual controls to manage cumulative irradiance have led to a focus on developing a system level approach that embeds safety directly into the design of the equipment. This reduces the reliance on the user to estimate and manage surgical lighting irradiance. Automated devices can help maintain a safe environment, regardless of how lights are positioned. The Dräger Polaris surgical light features
Light Guard, a safety-critical innovative solution designed to actively manage combined irradiance when multiple lights are used simultaneously. Rather than monitoring each light in isolation, the system links lightheads and continuously calculates their combined radiant energy at the surgical field. If the surgeon increases the brightness of one lighthead, the linked light automatically and simultaneously reduces its output, ensuring that total irradiance does not exceed the established safety limit of 700 W/m²
. This dynamic, real-time
compensation occurs without delay and does not require any user intervention, even if rapid changes in lighting are needed. By maintaining total radiant energy within safe thresholds, the system ensures adequate visualisation without disrupting surgical workflow. There is no need for constant manual adjustment, therefore. It reduces cognitive burden and potential distractions for operating theatre staff, and allows the surgical team to focus on patient care, rather than on equipment management. Thermal injury caused by surgical lighting
is relatively uncommon and often under- recognised. However, the consequences can be serious for patients and costly for healthcare systems. The evidence reveals that, while it is a real risk, it is preventable, and awareness alone is not likely to eliminate the risk entirely.
Technology meets reality As operating theatres continue to evolve, surgical lighting should no longer be viewed as a passive part of the infrastructure, but as an active component of patient safety. Designing systems that anticipate the need for human intervention and automatically integrate protection offers a more reliable solution than manual observation alone. The evidence challenges us to ask not if
surgeons are using lighting correctly, but if lighting systems are designed with safety in mind. By re-examining operating theatre lighting as an integral part of patient safety and workflow design, healthcare organisations can reduce avoidable risk and support the efficiency and wellbeing of surgical teams.
24
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I July 2026
Fig.3 The Dräger Polaris automated system prevents thermal injury
References 1. Sharma N, Heer A, Su L. A timeline of surgical lighting - Is automated lighting the future? Surgeon. Dec 2023;21(6):369-374. doi:10.1016/j. surge.2023.05.004
2. Mohamed D LG, Hobbs S, Athanasiadou M. Deep-dermal burn sustained from operative Lighting: A case report. Burns Open. 2024;8:112- 114.
3. Institute. E. Hazard report. Overlap of surgical lighthead beams may present burn risk. Health Devices. ECRI Institute. 2009;38(10) (Oct;38):341-2.
4. Curlin J, Herman CK. Current State of Surgical Lighting. Surg J (N Y). Apr 2020;6(2):e87-e97. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1710529
5. IEC; IECI. Medical electrical equipment – Part 2-41: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of surgical luminaires and luminaires for diagnosis. Geneva:2021.
6. Baxter-Healthcare-Corporation. Field Safety Notice, Follow up Communication FA-2024-035 iLED 7 Surgical Lights. 2024. October.
7. Ge L, Huang X, Dong Z, Zhong T. Causes of drug- induced photosensitivity: an analysis using FDA adverse event reporting system database. Sci Rep. May 24 2025;15(1):18102. doi:10.1038/ s41598-025-03114-4
8. Almubaid Z, Alhaj Z, Saldana G, Alquicira O, Mohamed S. Photosensitivity-Induced Pediatric Rash Following Surgery: A Case Study. Cureus. Sep 2024;16(9):e69529. doi:10.7759/ cureus.69529
9. Knulst AJ, Mooijweer R, Jansen FW, Stassen LP, Dankelman J. Indicating shortcomings in surgical lighting systems. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. Sep 2011;20(5):267-75. doi:10.3109 /13645706.2010.534169
CSJ
10. Weigl M, Antoniadis S, Chiapponi C, Bruns C, Sevdalis N. The impact of intra-operative interruptions on surgeons’ perceived workload:
About the author
Erk-Owe Hartz has over 24 years of experience in Medical Technology. Since 2006, he has been working for Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, in the Workplace Infrastructure Business, which has a global reach. His focus is on Medical Supply Systems, Gas Management Systems and Medical Lights. He has been a member of the International standard committee for surgical luminaires and luminaires for diagnosis, IEC 60601-2-41, since 2017.
an observational study in elective general & orthopedic surgery. Surg Endosc. Jan 2015;29(1):145-53. doi:10.1007/s00464-014- 3668-6
11. Weigl M, Stefan P, Abhari K, et al. Intra- operative disruptions, surgeon’s mental workload, and technical performance in a full-scale simulated procedure. Surg Endosc. Feb 2016;30(2):559-566. doi:10.1007/s00464-015- 4239-1
12. Stucky CH, Cromwell KD, Voss RK, et al. Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg (Lond). Mar 2018;27:1-8. doi:10.1016/
j.amsu.2017.12.013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
