Conventional Vs. Fiberoptic Treatment

Conventional vs. Fiberoptic Treatment
Hyperbilirubinemia is a common illness noted in newborn babies, but through the intervention of science and technology, doctors are in a position to treat most of these cases. Phototherapy stood out as the effective method of treating the illness because it tends to be noninvasive by nature and provides safety to the mother and child. It has two methods of treatment; Fiberoptic and conventional, which tend to have a common methodology. However, doctors use conventional phototherapy than Fiberoptic due to several factors despite it being convenient towards administering proper care. Some studies state that Fiberoptic treatment exhibits lower bilirubin levels than the conventional phototherapy. The research paper seeks to discuss the differences between the two treatment methods and look into the effective method that will help save more lives. The paper will make use of previous studies to draw out the conclusions.
Brief Background Summary
According to Saleh Al-Alaiyan (1996), between 30 and 50 percent of neonates exhibit hyperbilirubinemia during their first week after birth. Ten percent of these neonates require phototherapy to control the illness before it becomes fatal. Conventional phototherapy, being a common method, features white and blue fluorescent light bulbs, which produce visible light
Moreover, fiber technology targets home settings unlike conventional technology, which is mainly in the hospital and other health institutions. Another benefit of Fiberoptic technology is less harm to the patient and nurses. The change from one baby to another is faster and does not require one to provide extra care for the infant during the procedure. The LED technology is cheaper to install and run, but the use of Fiberoptic might be expensive to the