Characterising endourologist learning curve during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: implications on occupational dose and patients

Radiation exposure of patients during endourological procedures

PURPOSE

Considering the existing gaps in the literature regarding patient radiation dose (RD) and its associated risks, a systematic review of the literature on RD was conducted, focusing on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and ureteroscopy (URS).

METHODS

Two authors conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies on RD during endourological procedures. Two thousand two hundred sixty-six articles were screened. Sixty-five publications met the inclusion criteria using the PRISMA standards.

RESULTS

RD was generally highest for PCNL, reaching levels up to 33 mSv, 28,700 mGycm2, and 430.8 mGy. This was followed by SWL, with RD reaching up to 7.32 mSv, 13,082 mGycm2, and 142 mGy. URS demonstrated lower RD, reaching up to 6.07 mSv, 8920 mGycm2, and 46.99 mGy. Surgeon experience and case load were inversely associated with RD. Strategies such as optimizing fluoroscopy settings, implementing ultrasound (US), and following the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle minimized RD.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review analyzing RD, which was generally highest during PCNL, followed by SWL and URS. There is no specific RD limit for these procedures. Implementation of strategies such as optimizing fluoroscopy settings, utilizing US, and adhering to the ALARA principle proved effective in reducing RD. However, further research is needed to explore the factors influencing RD, assess their impact on patient outcomes, and establish procedure-specific reference levels for RD.

Current status of radiological protection in endourological procedures in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To discover the extent of training in radiological protection (RP) of Spanish urologists who perform endourological procedures, and to analyse the use of on ionising radiation control and protection measures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A survey conducted through the Plataforma de Investigación de Estudios Multicéntricos (PIEM) (Multicentre Study Research Platform) on the 1,894 associates of the Spanish Association of Urology, between April and October 2015. The questionnaire comprised 21 questions on endourological activity undertaken, RP training, and the use of protective measures, and personal dosimetry. Seventeen percent responded, and 238 surveys were eventually validated for study.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent of the respondents had received no type of RP training, 25% had first level accreditation, and only 12% second level. Fifty-seven percent, 27%, and 2% of the urologists used flap, wrist and crystalline dosimetry respectively. Use of radiation protection measures was insufficient. Fifty-three percent of the urologists at greatest risk of exposure had had no training in RP, 30% did not use flap dosimetry, and 40% used neither an apron or thyroid collar during the endourological procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

RP training, dosis monitoring, and the use of ionising radiation protective measures are insufficient, even by practitioners most exposed to radiation. It is essential that these serious shortcomings in RP are corrected, at the level of the individual, in urology departments, scientific societies, and the health authorities.