An evaluation of radio frequency exposure from therapeutic diathermy equipment

MICROWAVE DIATHERMY IN PHYSIOTHERAPY: INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION OF A QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURE

Microwave diathermies (MWDs) are electromagnetic (EM) radiation emitting systems that are used by physiotherapists for thermotherapy treatment. Although this form of therapy is widely available in most physiotherapy units worldwide, management of the equipment is not obligatory addressed either by clinical engineers or medical physicists. A novel quality control (QC) protocol for MWD equipment, examining mechanical, electrical and electronic condition, the power output and EM radiation distribution in the electrotherapy room, was used during a national QC survey. The results of the survey revealed serious concerns about the safety of users and coexisting patients. The proposed approach could result in the introduction of EM-screened rooms, ensuring that MWD users and other persons in the vicinity will not be exposed to EM radiation over reference levels. International bodies could develop specific directives for EM radiation exposure in Physiotherapy Units, to conform to the proposed acceptance and functioning criteria for MDWs.

Microwave diathermy in physiotherapy units: a survey on spatial and time heterogeneity of the electromagnetic field

Microwave diathermy (MWD) is a therapeutic system that has been in use for some decades now in all physiotherapy settings, following the regulations of national facility establishments. The validity of diathermy devices is probably reduced as their working time increases, introducing the need for the device to be controlled/reset by qualified personnel in order to maintain its effectiveness in sessions and to accurately deliver the energy output that the physiotherapist asks for. However, while MWD has been a vital tool for practising physiotherapists, there is no clear evidence of a health burden due to incorrect usability. Additionally, due to the fact that physiotherapy rooms contain physiotherapeutic equipment it is observed that during the use of the diathermy device there is spatial heterogeneity in the interior space. In this work, the results are presented of the first national survey for quality control of MWD systems installed in physiotherapy rooms existing in urban and rural areas in Greece. Serious concerns about the technical status of the equipment as well as staff and patient safety, regarding the levels of non-ionising radiation emitted from MWD devices, are discussed. Additional evaluation is included of measurements in empty physiotherapy rooms while the MWD unit is transmitting at three different input powers (50 W/100 W/150 W-these are the therapeutic protocols used most frequently by physiotherapists) and in fully equipped physiotherapy rooms. Field strengths measured around MWDs normally working at different angles, distances and times compared to international limits revealed great spatial and time heterogeneity, raising serious concerns about the safety of occupational workers or other patients.

Assessment of physiotherapists' occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from shortwave and microwave diathermy devices: a literature review

We reviewed studies reporting the strength of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) in physiotherapists' occupational environment. Studies from academic journals published from January 1990 to June 2010 were identified in nine online bibliographic databases. EMF strength was compared with occupational exposure limits (OELs) recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In the reviewed studies, EMFs were measured at different distances (range 0.2 m to 6 m) from the console of diathermy devices, electrodes, and cables. For continuous shortwave diathermy (CSWD) (27.12 megahertz, MHz), measurements of EMFs at < 1 m, 1 m, 1.1-1.5 m, and 2 m reported the maximum E field strength as 8197%, 1639%, 295%, and 69%, respectively, and the maximum H field strength as 6250%, 681%, 213%, and 56%, respectively, of the ICNIRP limits for E and H fields for occupational exposure. For pulsed shortwave diathermy (PSWD) (27.12 MHz), EMF measurements at < 1 m, 1 m, and, 1.1-1.5 m showed the maximum E field intensity as 1639%, 175%, and 32%, and the maximum H field strength as 1175%, 968%, and 28%, respectively, of the ICNIRP limits for E and H fields for occupational exposure. For microwave diathermy (MWD) (2.45 gigahertz, GHz), the maximum power density measured at < 1 m, 1 m, 1.1-1.5 m, and 2 m was 200%, <30%, 0.76%, and 0.82%, respectively, of the ICNIRP limit for occupational exposure. RF EMF emissions measured from continuous and pulsed electrotherapeutic diathermy devices may well be higher than OELs at specific distances, i.e., at 1 m, which is currently designated to be a safe distance for physiotherapists. The minimum safe distance for physiotherapists should be revised to at least 2 m for CSWD and 1.5 m for PSWD. The reviewed studies did not provide evidence of exceeding the ICNIRP's reference levels for occupational exposure at 1 m from MWD devices.

Occupational exposure of dentists to extremely-low-frequency magnetic field

OBJECTIVE

To compare occupational exposure to extremely-low-frequency magnetic field (ELF-MF) between dentists practicing in dental clinics and those employed in hospitals.

METHODS

Thirty-two dentists who worked at clinics (n=15) and 33 dentists employed at hospital dental departments (n=7) voluntarily provided their informed consent to participate in this measurement study. The study dentists were requested to wear an ELF-MF dosimeter for some 3 h at work to determine their personal exposure. Spot measurements taken at a number of locations in each dental office were used to indicate the work environment exposure level. Additionally, ELF-MF emitted from common dental equipment was also measured. All measurements were performed with EMDEX Lite meters.

RESULTS

The average environmental exposure to ELF-MF is higher in clinic dental offices than in hospital dental departments (0.55 vs. 0.15 µT, p=0.008). Personal dosimetry showed that on average, clinic dentists spent 35.71 and 19.39% of their time at exposures above 0.3 and 0.4 µT at work, respectively. The corresponding figures for hospital dentists were 19.61 and 13.92%. Additionally, ELF-MF was greater than 0.4 µT at 30 cm from all selected equipment, but the ELF-MF generally diminished as the distance from dental equipment increased. Uultraviolet air sterilization system produced 3 times as much ELF-MF as other dental equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests the possibility of over-exposure of dentists to power frequency ELF-MF. Additionally, certain dental equipment may produce ELF-MF levels greater than 0.4 µT in areas where dentists usually work when treating patients.

Exposure of non-target tissues in medical diathermy

With different prevalence in different regions, radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) are widely used for therapeutic tissue heating. Although short-wave diathermy (27.12 MHz) is the most popular treatment modality, quantitative data on patient's exposure have been lacking. By numerical simulation with the numerical anatomical model NORMAN, intracorporal distributions of specific absorption rates (SAR) were investigated for different treatment scenarios and applicators. Quantitative data are provided for exposures of target treatment areas as well as for vulnerable regions such as the eye lenses, central nervous system, and testes. Different applicators and distances were investigated. Capacitive and inductive applicators exhibit quite a different heating efficiency. It could be shown that for the same output power therapeutic heat deposition can vary by almost one order of magnitude. By mimicking therapist's practice to use patient's heat perception as an indicator for output power setting, numerical data were elaborated demonstrating that muscle tissue exposures may be several times higher for inductive than for capacitive applicators. Presented quantitative data serve as a guide for power adjustment preventing relevant overexposures without compromising therapy; they also provide a basis for estimating target tissue heat load and developing therapeutic guidelines.

Investigation of practices and procedures in the use of therapeutic diathermy: a study from the physiotherapists' health and safety perspective

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The safe use of therapeutic diathermy requires practices and procedures that ensure compliance to professional guidelines and clinical evidence. Inappropriate use may expose physiotherapists and other people in the vicinity of operating diathermy devices to stray radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which can be a source of risk and may lead to adverse health effects. The aim of the present study was to investigate practices and procedures for therapeutic diathermy from a health and safety perspective.

METHOD

A cross-sectional research design was used, this included a postal survey using a self-administered questionnaire and semi-structured observational visits to 46 physiotherapy departments in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals located in the south-east and south-west of England, including Greater London.

RESULTS

Microwave diathermy was not available in the departments surveyed. Pulsed shortwave diathermy was available and was used more commonly than continuous shortwave diathermy. There were metallic objects in treatment cubicles used for pulsed shortwave diathermy and continuous shortwave diathermy. Shortwave diathermy devices created electromagnetic interference with a variety of electrical and medical devices. Physiotherapists reported that they did not stay in the treatment cubicle during the entire period of electrotherapy with pulsed shortwave diathermy or continous shortwave diathermy; pregnant physiotherapists reported that they did not use these devices. Electrotherapy with pulsed shortwave diathermy and continuous shortwave diathermy was not always administered on a wooden couch or chair. Electrotherapy was highest in those departments with the fewest physiotherapists.

CONCLUSIONS

Departments report good practices and procedures regarding the use of therapeutic diathermy devices. However, field observations of practices and procedures, and the working environment, have identified issues with a potential to create health and safety problems, and these should be addressed.

An evaluation of safety guidelines to restrict exposure to stray radiofrequency radiation from short-wave diathermy units

Short-wave diathermy (SWD), a form of radiofrequency radiation used therapeutically by physiotherapists, may be applied in continuous (CSWD) or pulsed (PSWD) mode using either capacitive or inductive methods. Stray radiation emitted by these units may exceed exposure guidelines close to the equipment. Discrepant guidelines exist on a safe distance from an operating unit for operators and other personnel. Stray electric (E-field) and magnetic (H-field) field strengths from 10 SWD units in six departments were examined using a PMM 8053 meter and two isotropic probes (EP-330, HP-032). A 5 l saline phantom completed the patient circuit. Measurements were recorded in eight directions between 0.5 m and 2 m at hip and eye levels while the units operated at maximum output and data compared to current guidelines. Results found stray fields from capacitive CSWD fell below operator limits at 2 m (E-field 4.8-39.8 V/m; H-field 0.015-0.072 A/m) and at 1 m for inductive CSWD (E-field 0-36 V/m; H-field 0.01-0.065 A/m). Capacitive PSWD fields fell below the limits at 1.5 m (E-field 1.2-19.9 V/m; H-field 0.002-0.045 A/m) and at 1m for inductive PSWD (E-field 0.74.0 V/m; H-field 0.009-0.03 A/m). An extra 0.5 m was required before fields fell below the guidelines for other personnel. These results demonstrate, under a worst case scenario, emissions from SWD exceed the guidelines for operators at distances currently recommended as safe. Future guidelines should include recommendations for personnel other than physiotherapists.