Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of using monocular, binocular and panoramic night vision goggles in successful venous access in darkness
  1. Sedat Bilge1,
  2. A Aydin2 and
  3. U Yakut1
  1. 1Emergency Department, Health Sciences University, Gulhane Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
  2. 2Functional Medicine Unit, Miaclinics Wellness Center, Istanbul, Turkey
  1. Correspondence to A Aydin, Miaclinics Health Clinics, Istanbul 34758, Turkey; drattilaaydin{at}


Introduction The use of night vision goggles (NVGs) by medical staff operating in active combat areas may present a tactical advantage in maintaining unit concealment. This study seeks to assess the degree to which NVG use improves speed and ease of intravenous access in comparison to no NVG use, and which NVG system (monocular, binocular or panoramic) provides the best conditions for the clinician.

Methods Cannulation was carried out using both eyes open (BEO) and one eye open (OEO) in well-lit conditions to establish a baseline measurement. The same procedure was then performed with a variety of NVGs, with and without infrared (IR) light sources in a dark room, and the degree of difficulty, time to procedural completion and success rate were compared.

Results NVG use improved procedure speed in comparison to the BEO method in the dark. Among the NVG methods trialled, binocular NVG (BNVG) methods outperformed panoramic NVG (PNVG) and monocular NVG in terms of success rate.

Conclusions Use of BNVG resulted with a better success rate in our study. We would like to emphasise that although combatant units prefer PNVGs for the wider temporal vision they provide, it must be kept in mind that this may pose a disadvantage in peripheral vascular access procedures while providing first aid to the casualty at close distances.

  • binocular
  • darkness
  • intravenous access
  • monocular
  • night vision goggles
  • panoramic
View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The Health Sciences University Gulhane Ethics Committee approved the study (46418926, 18/104–08.04.2018).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.