Skip to main content
Log in

How are we protecting ourselves from radiation exposure? A nationwide survey

  • Urology – Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We performed a nationwide survey of Brazilian urologists to study behaviors toward radiation exposure and the use of protective and monitoring equipment.

Methods

A 13-question e-mail questionnaire was sent to 4,526 Brazilian urologists; the questions addressed demographic characteristics, radiation exposure, and the utilization of shielding devices and dosimeters. The reasons why these devices were not used were also investigated.

Results

A total of 332 completed questionnaires were analyzed (7.3 %); the median age of the respondents was 43.3 ± 10.8 years. Lead aprons and thyroid protection are utilized in every procedure by 84.4 and 53.89 % of respondents, respectively. Protective eyeglasses are never used by 72.12 % of the respondents. Older urologists were more likely not to use adequate protection. Of the urologists who responded, 76.42 % never use dosimeters.

Conclusion

This study shows an unsatisfactory utilization of radiation-shielding devices and dosimeters, revealing a low compliance to the as low as reasonably achievable principle among Brazilian urologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ALARA:

As low as reasonably achievable

RIRS:

Retrograde intra-renal surgery

PCNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

ESWL:

External shock wave lithotripsy

ICRP:

International Commission on Radiological Protection

References

  1. Klein LW et al (2009) Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Radiology 250(2):538–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ciraj-Bjelac O et al (2012) Radiation-induced eye lens changes and risk for cataract in interventional cardiology. Cardiology 123(3):168–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedman AA et al (2013) Radiation safety knowledge and practices among urology residents and fellows: results of a nationwide survey. J Surg Educ 70(2):224–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Soylemez H et al (2013) Knowledge and attitude of European urology residents about ionizing radiation. Urology 81(1):30–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soylemez H et al (2012) Radiation exposure—do urologists take it seriously in Turkey? J Urol 187(4):1301–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Linet MS et al (2012) Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin 62:75–100

  7. Rehani MM et al (2010) ICRP publication 117. Radiological protection in fluoroscopically guided procedures performed outside the imaging department. Ann ICRP 40(6):1–102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schindera ST et al (2011) An education and training programme for radiological institutes: impact on the reduction of the CT radiation dose. Eur Radiol 21(10):2039–2045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elkoushy MA, Andonian S (2011) Prevalence of orthopedic complaints among endourologists and their compliance with radiation safety measures. J Endourol 25(10):1609–1613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ait-Ali L et al (2010) Cumulative patient effective dose and acute radiation-induced chromosomal DNA damage in children with congenital heart disease. Heart 96(4):269–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mendez Probst CE, Denstedt JD, Razvi H (2009) Preoperative indications for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 2009. J Endourol 23(10):1557–1561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen SA et al (2013) Occupational hazard: radiation exposure for the urologist—developing a reference standard. Int Braz J Urol 39(2):209–213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hellawell GO et al (2005) Radiation exposure and the urologist: what are the risks? J Urol 174(3):948–952 discussion 952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Deters LA et al (2014) Ultrasound guided ureteroscopy for the definitive management of ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 192:1710–1713

  15. Hsi RS, Harper JD (2013) Fluoroless ureteroscopy: zero-dose fluoroscopy during ureteroscopic treatment of urinary-tract calculi. J Endourol 27(4):432–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the Brazilian Society of Urology for the support in the distribution of the query.

Conflict of interest

No competing financial interests exist.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo Oliveira Reis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borges, C.F., Reggio, E., Vicentini, F.C. et al. How are we protecting ourselves from radiation exposure? A nationwide survey. Int Urol Nephrol 47, 271–274 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0882-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0882-z

Keywords

Navigation