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.
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
Klein LW et al (2009) Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Radiology 250(2):538–544
Ciraj-Bjelac O et al (2012) Radiation-induced eye lens changes and risk for cataract in interventional cardiology. Cardiology 123(3):168–171
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
Soylemez H et al (2013) Knowledge and attitude of European urology residents about ionizing radiation. Urology 81(1):30–35
Soylemez H et al (2012) Radiation exposure—do urologists take it seriously in Turkey? J Urol 187(4):1301–1305
Linet MS et al (2012) Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin 62:75–100
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
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
Elkoushy MA, Andonian S (2011) Prevalence of orthopedic complaints among endourologists and their compliance with radiation safety measures. J Endourol 25(10):1609–1613
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
Mendez Probst CE, Denstedt JD, Razvi H (2009) Preoperative indications for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 2009. J Endourol 23(10):1557–1561
Cohen SA et al (2013) Occupational hazard: radiation exposure for the urologist—developing a reference standard. Int Braz J Urol 39(2):209–213
Hellawell GO et al (2005) Radiation exposure and the urologist: what are the risks? J Urol 174(3):948–952 discussion 952
Deters LA et al (2014) Ultrasound guided ureteroscopy for the definitive management of ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 192:1710–1713
Hsi RS, Harper JD (2013) Fluoroless ureteroscopy: zero-dose fluoroscopy during ureteroscopic treatment of urinary-tract calculi. J Endourol 27(4):432–437
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0882-z