The Knowledge of Radiation and the Attitude Towards Radio-Protection among Urology Residents in India

Do urologists actually comply with the ALARA principle in pediatric urolithiasis management?

The purpose of the study was to determine the urologists' knowledge of ionizing radiation and the frequency of CT scan utilization for pediatric patients with urolithiasis. The second aim is to examine the factors that affect the choice of the CT imaging method in these patients. We sent a quantitative online questionnaire to urologists and pediatric urologists in various regions and practice settings of Turkey via a web survey database in June 2022. The survey consisted of 22 items in a multiple-choice or yes/no format and was divided into three sections: participant characteristics, knowledge, and current practice. One hundred and fifty-four participants fully completed this questionnaire. Forty-two participants (27.3%) correctly stated the radiation dose of an abdominal CT scan. Thirty of the participants (19.5%) thought that there was no relationship between exposure to radiation and cancer development. In addition, 76 participants (49.4%) were aware of any scientific literature about this relationship. Ninety-eight participants (63.6%) think that they did not receive adequate training on imaging methods for pediatric patients during their residency program. The choice of CT scans as the first imaging method was increased with age. Even if the choice of imaging method is mostly decided according to the guidelines, various factors such as medicolegal causes, long ultrasound appointment dates, poor quality of assessment, and clinical experiences are inevitable facts that guide the choice of computed tomography. Urologists are responsible for knowing the effects of ionizing radiation and the ALARA principle. Our findings emphasize the lack of knowledge about ionizing radiation. Encouragement of the literature, provision of the mandatory curriculum, and supervision of the use of ionizing radiation will contribute to the elimination of the deficiency in this area.

Radiation exposure using leaded versus regular latex surgical gloves in endourological procedures: a prospective comparative study

Our aim was to compare hand radiation exposure using leaded vs. regular latex surgical gloves in endourological procedures. We conducted a single-center prospective comparative study between January 2017 and December 2020. Surgeon 1 wore leaded surgical gloves, while Surgeon 2 voluntarily wore regular latex surgical gloves. A ring badge and chest dosimeters were used to estimate hand and whole-body scattered radiation dose in all endourological stone procedures (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)). We found that Surgeon 1 and 2 performed a mean of 158 (SD 15.2) and 158 (SD 15.1) procedures/year, respectively, for a total of 1,092 between 2017 and 2020 between the two surgeons (696 URS/RIRS and 396 PCNL). The overall mean hand annual radiation exposure dose for Surgeon 1 and 2 was 2.87 mSv (SD 1.3) and 14.89 mSv (SD 7.87), respectively (p = 0.027), which corresponds to a mean of 0.02 (SD 0.02) and 0.1 mSv (SD 0.1) per procedure (p < 0.001). The estimated annual scattered radiation was 0.0012 and 0.0016, respectively (p = 0.63). We concluded that the use of leaded gloves in endourological stone procedures showed a significant reduction of radiation dose per year and per procedure compared to regular latex gloves; no increase in whole-body scattered radiation was detected with their use. We believe that the use of leaded gloves may be recommended, especially in urologists who dedicate most of their practice to endoscopic stone surgery. Further studies are needed to define whether these gloves could increase patient radiation exposure.

Awareness and implementation of lonizing radiation safety measures among urology community in Egypt: nationwide survey

Background

To assess awareness of ionizing radiation safety measures among Egyptian Urology Trainees and Urologists and see the effect of radiation safety courses on the adoption of these measures.

Methods

This Internet-based survey was conducted via https://www.surveymonkey.com/ after approval by the Egyptian Urological Association (EUA). It was sent to all EUA members via email during December 2019. Participation was voluntary and questions included participants’ demographics such as age, gender, years of experience, level of training and type of practice. Other questions assessed some domains such as whether the participant had radiation safety courses, and the extent to which she/he is adopting these measures during daily practice.

Results

A total of 142 Egyptian urology trainees and urologists responded to this electronic survey. The mean hours of fluoroscopy-guided endourologic procedures per week were 4.3 ± 2.1 h, and only 23% reported that they always wear protective lead aprons. In terms of the thyroid shield, X-ray protective gloves, eye googles, a total of 70% and 89% and 89% reported that they never wore it, respectively. The ALARA principle was known by only 24% of respondents. About 94% denied receiving any radiation safety courses. Participants who received radiation safety course reported significantly shorter FT during URS (p = 0.04), PCNL (p = 0.03) and JJ insertion (p = 0.04) and were significantly more compliant (p = 0.02). In addition, the number of years of experience (< 5y,5-10y,10-15y, > 15y) and the current job level (resident, specialist, consultant, professor) was significantly associated with higher compliance with lead aprons (p = 0.006, p < 0.001, respectively). On regression analysis, previous radiation safety awareness courses were the only predictor of good compliance with radiation safety measures (OR = 2 ± 0.73, p = 0.009).

Conclusion

There was a lack of awareness and implementation of radiation safety measures among all participants. Receiving radiation safety courses was the only predictor of good compliance with radiation safety measures.

Radiation Safety Knowledge and Practices: Is the Indian Orthopaedic Community Well-informed?

BACKGROUND

In spite of frequent exposure to radiation, orthopaedic surgeons lack knowledge about radiation safety and do not comply with safety practices. We surveyed orthopaedic trainees and consultants in India to determine their knowledge and practices regarding radiation safety.

METHODS

A questionnaire with 16 multiple choice questions was sent out using Google forms. We included practicing orthopaedic surgeons (consultants), fellows and trainees pursuing DNB, MS and D. Ortho courses across India.

RESULTS

We received 439/700 responses (62.7% response rate) from 233 (53.1%) consultants and 206 (46.9%) trainees. Only 71 (16.2%) were aware of the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle. While lead aprons were always used by 379 (86.3%), thyroid shields were never used by 302 (68.8%) respondents. Knowledge about the ALARA principle was significantly associated with radiation safety practices. A significantly greater proportion of participants who were aware about the ALARA principle always used lead aprons (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2, p = 0.001) and thyroid shields (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7, p = 0.029) and had their dosimeters checked within the last 1 year (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.8, p = 0.039) when compared to those who were not aware of the ALARA principle. Almost 99% respondents expressed interest in participating in a radiation safety training program.

CONCLUSION

A majority of the respondents were keen to obtain training in radiation safety. We believe that professional organizations and hospitals could initiate training programs for the orthopaedic community in India to improve their radiation safety knowledge and practices.

Assessment of Radiation Safety Knowledge Among Urology Residents in the United States

Introduction: Urologists are increasingly exposed to fluoroscopy, which can cause cellular damage. Appropriate awareness and safety precautions concerning fluoroscopy are necessary and likely should be a focus during training. We sought to assess radiation safety knowledge among Urology residents in the United States. Methods: A 19-question survey was constructed to assess radiation safety training, knowledge, behavior, and attitudes. The survey was sent through REDCap™ (Research Electronic Data Capture) to all Urology program directors and coordinators in the United States with a request to distribute to their residents. The survey was closed after 3 weeks. Results: One hundred thirty-six urology trainees responded during the study period. Thirteen percent learned fluoroscopic radiation safety formally, 46% informally, 35% both informally and formally, and 6% no education. Forty-six percent reported radiation safety being part of their curriculum. When asked about directional X-ray travel and exposure, only 54% answered correctly. Regarding conditions related to radiation exposure, 94% believe infertility is potentially related, 83% cataracts, 93% leukemia and lymphoma, 57% central nervous system tumors, 77% birth defects, and 4% diabetes. Regarding protection, 9% wear lead-lined glasses, 30% dosimeters, 99% thyroid shields, 0% lead gloves, 97% lead apron, 26% lead shield, and 0% nothing. Regarding fluoroscopy machine settings, 7% knew the machine used was set to continuous, 73% pulse, and 21% were unsure. Sixty-six percent had awareness of the directional travel of the machine routinely used. Regarding safety techniques, 99% knew decreasing time and 100% knew wearing protective materials decrease exposure. However, when asked about distance and exposure, 55% answered incorrectly. Most respondents believe radiation safety is important (89%) and desire more formal education (64%). Conclusions: Trainees lack sufficient knowledge in several key areas regarding radiation safety. Formal education may be considered during training and is desired by trainees. This education is likely needed to ensure trainees learn methods to keep them safe during their career.