1
|
Fontanet Soler S, Bravo-Balado A, Skolarikos A, Seitz C, Traxer O, Talso M, Ventimiglia E, Villa L, Pietropaolo A, Keller EX, Kallidonis P, Sener TE, Nagele U, De Coninck V, Hameed Z, Tsaturyan A, Juliebø-Jones P, Mikoniatis I, Wiseman O, Tzelves L, Emiliani E. Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group. World J Urol 2024; 42:163. [PMID: 38488927 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04854-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2024] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Due to the radiation exposure for the urology staff during endourology, our aim was to evaluate the trends of radiation protection in the operation room by endourologists from European centers and to estimate their annual radiation. METHODS We conducted a multicenter study involving experienced endourologists from different European centers to evaluate whether the protection and threshold doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) were being followed. A 36-question survey was completed on the use of fluoroscopy and radiation protection. Annual prospective data from chest, extremities, and eye dosimeters were collected during a 4-year period (2017-2020). RESULTS Ten endourologists participated. Most surgeons use lead aprons and thyroid shield (9/10 and 10/10), while leaded gloves and caps are rarely used (2/10 both). Six out of ten surgeons wear leaded glasses. There is widespread use of personal chest dosimeters under the apron (9/10), and only 5/10 use a wrist or ring dosimeter and 4 use an eye dosimeter. Two endourologists use the ALARA protocol. The use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL puncture was reported by 8 surgeons. The mean number of PCNL and URS per year was 30.9 (SD 19.9) and 147 (SD 151.9). The mean chest radiation was 1.35 mSv per year and 0.007 mSv per procedure. Mean radiation exposure per year in the eyes and extremities was 1.63 and 11.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS Endourologists did not exceed the threshold doses for radiation exposure to the chest, extremities and lens. Furthermore, the ALARA protocol manages to reduce radiation exposure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sofia Fontanet Soler
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert (IUNA), Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - Alejandra Bravo-Balado
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert (IUNA), Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andreas Skolarikos
- Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Christian Seitz
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Olivier Traxer
- Department of Urology, Tenon Hospital, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-EST, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Pierre Et Marie Curie Paris 6, Paris, France
| | - Michele Talso
- Department of Urology ASST Fatebenefratelli, Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Eugenio Ventimiglia
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Luca Villa
- Department of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospe-Dale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Amelia Pietropaolo
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Etienne Xavier Keller
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Tarik Emre Sener
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Udo Nagele
- Department of Urology and Andrology, General Hospital Hall in Tirol, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | | | - Zeeshan Hameed
- Department of Urology, Kasturba Medical College Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
| | | | | | - Ioannis Mikoniatis
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Health Sciences, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Oliver Wiseman
- Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lazaros Tzelves
- Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Esteban Emiliani
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert (IUNA), Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mohd Ridzwan SF, Bhoo-Pathy N, Wee LH, Isahak M. Beliefs, Facilitating Factors, and Barriers in Using Personal Dosimeter among Medical Radiation Workers in a Middle-Income Asian Setting. Ann Work Expo Health 2021; 65:940-954. [PMID: 34037205 DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxab025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2020] [Revised: 02/22/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
This qualitative study explores the medical radiation workers' (MRWs) beliefs with the support of the theory of planned behaviour's constructs regarding the use of personal dosimeters in order to identify the facilitating factors and barriers to practising good personal dose monitoring. The exploration was conducted through semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 63 MRWs from the public, private, and university hospitals. Belief statements from the informants were organized under the behavioural, normative, and control belief, as guided by the theory. A thematic analysis found that a majority of informants acknowledged the benefits of using dosimeters. However, several factors influenced the actual usage. The informants were hesitant to use the dosimeter as the loss of the device involved an expensive penalty. They also mentioned that delayed dosimeter supplies due to late budget approval in the hospitals and some other reasons had got them disconnected from the monitoring system. The workers' attitudes and social norms highly induced their dosimeter usage as well; some perceived themselves to be at low risk for high exposure to radiation, and forgetfulness was also mentioned as a reason for lack of adherence. Device physical factor influenced low dosimeter use too. This study highlighted some unique findings in Asian settings. A better understanding of the underlying reasons for the lack of dosimeter use will be useful in developing strategies to increase good practices in personal radiation monitoring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siti Farizwana Mohd Ridzwan
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.,Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Lei Hum Wee
- Health Education Program, Centre for Community Health Studies (ReaCH), Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Marzuki Isahak
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ong K, Warren H, Nalagatla S, Kmiotek E, Obasi C, Shanmugathas N, Beech H, Chan L, Colemeadow J, Ibrahim I, Waqar M, Lane J, Rehman OF, Makanjuola J. Radiation Safety Knowledge and Practice in Urology Theaters: A Collaborative Multicenter Survey. J Endourol 2021; 35:1084-1089. [PMID: 33544020 DOI: 10.1089/end.2020.0955] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the knowledge and current radiation safety practice among health care professionals undertaking fluoroscopic procedures in urology. Materials and Methods: A 14-question survey was disseminated to multidisciplinary urology theater staff. Questions included demographic data, usual radiation safety practice, and knowledge. The questions were selected based on guidelines from the International Commission of Radiological Protection and Health and Safety Executive. The survey was disseminated through regional collaborators and social media. Results: The survey received a total of 309 completed responses, including 272 from the United Kingdom. Responses from the United Kingdom multidisciplinary team included 164 (60.3%) urologic surgeons, 68 (25.0%) theater nurses, 27 (9.9%) from the anesthetic team, and 13 (4.7%) radiographers. Results from the United Kingdom demonstrated use of lead aprons and thyroid shields as 99.3% and 52.2%, respectively. Lead glasses and lead glove use were 7.4% and 0.7%, respectively. Lack of availability was cited as a reason for noncompliance with shielding guidelines in 208 (76.5%) of the respondents. No form of training in radiation safety was reported by 120 (44.1%) respondents. However, there was no association between answering knowledge questions correctly and having completed some form of radiation safety training (p = 0.41). There was an association between dosimeter use and those who had received radiation safety training (p = 0.02). Consultant urologists were also more likely to use a dosimeter than training grade urologists (p = 0.035). Conclusion: Suboptimal compliance with radiation safety guidelines is prevalent in contemporary urologic practice, and presents a significant occupational health concern. Availability of protective equipment needs to be urgently addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly Ong
- Department of Urology, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Hannah Warren
- Department of Urology, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarika Nalagatla
- Department of Urology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | | | - Chekwas Obasi
- Department of Urology, Croydon University Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Helen Beech
- Department of Urology, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, United Kingdom
| | - Luke Chan
- Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Josie Colemeadow
- Department of Urology, North Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ibrahim Ibrahim
- Department of Urology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Muhammad Waqar
- Department of Urology, York District Hospital, York, United Kingdom
| | - Jenni Lane
- Department of Urology, Southampton Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Omer F Rehman
- Department of Urology, Armed Forces Institute of Urology AFIU, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Inoue T, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol 2021; 62:121-135. [PMID: 33660439 PMCID: PMC7940851 DOI: 10.4111/icu.20200526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
With the recent technological advancements in endourology, retrograde intrarenal surgery has become a more popular procedure for treatment of urolithiasis. Furthermore, since the introduction of new laser systems and advanced flexible ureteroscopy with miniaturized ureteroscopes, the treatment indications for retrograde intrarenal surgery have expanded to include not only larger renal stones of >2 cm but also upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, ureteral stricture, and idiopathic renal hematuria. Clinicians must keep up with these trends and make good use of these technologies in the rapidly changing field of endourology. Simultaneously, we must consider the risk of various complications including thermal injury due to laser use, ureteral injury caused by the ureteral access sheath, and radiation exposure during retrograde intrarenal surgery with fluoroscopic guidance. This review focuses on the past, present, and future of retrograde intrarenal surgery and provides many topics and clinical options for urologists to consider.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takaaki Inoue
- Department of Urology and Stone Center, Hara Genitourinary Hospital, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.,Department of Urology, Kobe University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.
| | - Shinsuke Okada
- Department of Urology, Gyotoku General Hospital, Ichikawa, Chiba, Japan
| | - Shuzo Hamamoto
- Department of Urology, Medical School, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
McCulloch MM, Fischer KW, Kearfott KJ. Medical Professional Radiation Dosimeter Usage: Reasons for Noncompliance. HEALTH PHYSICS 2018; 115:646-651. [PMID: 30260856 DOI: 10.1097/hp.0000000000000957] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of occupationally exposed employees at a large teaching hospital about wearing their assigned personal radiation dosimeters. A 16-question multiple-answer survey was used to report the reasons why medical professionals may not wear their dosimetry during procedures involving ionizing radiation. In all, 302 employees responded to the survey. The majority of respondents who reported always or almost always wearing their dosimeters do so because they consider themselves well informed concerning the importance of personal dosimetry measurement and appreciate the importance of federal and state regulations. For respondents who reported not always wearing their dosimeters, the most commonly stated reason was the inconvenience of remembering to bring and wear their dosimeters when working in multiple locations, for which a potential solution would be to provide dosimeters to each affected wearer in each location where they work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Molly M McCulloch
- University of Michigan, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
| | - Karl W Fischer
- University of Michigan, Environment, Health, and Safety, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
| | - Kimberlee J Kearfott
- University of Michigan, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Inoue T, Komemushi A, Murota T, Yoshida T, Taguchi M, Kinoshita H, Matsuda T. Effect of Protective Lead Curtains on Scattered Radiation Exposure to the Operator During Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease: A Controlled Trial. Urology 2017; 109:60-66. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2017] [Revised: 07/18/2017] [Accepted: 07/28/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|