Radiation Safety During Diagnosis and Treatment

Noureldin, Yasser A.; Andonian, Sero

doi:10.1002/9781119245193.ch2

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 178 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, the mean effective radiation dose (ERD) was estimated between 0.82-26.0 mSv (average 9.2 mSv) during PCNL and higher doses correlated with increased stone burden, prolonged operative time, multiple punctures and blood loss > 250 cc [21][22][23]. Despite all strategies which were described and were found to decrease Fluoroscopy exposure, such as ALARA principle, last image technology, pulsed fluoroscopy, and foot pedal control, the use of protective equipment is still vital and can lead to significantly lower radiation exposure as the use of lead apron lead to 96.5-99.5% attenuation of radiation, and the use of thyroid shield can decrease radiation exposure 23 times [7]. We conducted this survey to assess the awareness, training and implementation of ionizing radiation safety measures among Egyptian trainees and urologists and evaluate the safety measures taken during diagnosis and treatment in urology practice in Egypt.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States, a report released by the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) in 2009 showed that the higher numbers of Computed Tomography (CT) scans, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy and fluoroscopy guided procedures have doubled the ionizing radiation exposure during 2006 compared with 1980s [3,4]. Despite the fact that ionizing radiation plays crucial role in the modern urology practice, it is associated with potential hazards, either from direct cell death while applying high dose to sensitive organs such as skin and eye lens, or from DNA mutation which result in malignancy when cumulative low doses are applied [5][6][7]. In 2015, two recent studies, one in the Lance Hematology and one in the British Medical Journal, reported direct and linear association between malignancy and protracted low dose ionizing radiation exposure among more than 300,000 radiation workers from USA, UK and France [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The probability of an effect is associated with the dose, but the severity is independent of the dose. The main stochastic risk of the increased radiation exposure is the development of haematologic or solid malignancy (Noureldin & Andonian, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Questionnaire Survey on Radiation Protection among Medical Staff Working in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory

Salem

2023

Egypt. J. Rad.Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I T IS ESSENTIAL for cardiologists, technologists, and nurses working in the cardiac catheterization laboratory to understand radiation protection. However, protective equipment usage is still low, wearing dosimeters is also low, and thier needs to be more aware of radiation protection in practice. This study aims at assessing the awareness and knowledge of medical staff (cardiologists, nurses, and technicians) working in the cardiac catheterization laboratory of occupational radiation protection tools and detecting areas of defects in their knowledge. Therefore a validated questionnaire to 180 medical staff working in a cardiac catheterization laboratory was conducted.A total of 180 subjects from different institutions were surveyed. There were 103 (57.2%) cardiologists, 53 (29.4%) nurses, and 24 (13.3%) technologists. Although almost all staff members 176 (97.8%) always wear a lead apron, only 43 (23.9%) wear a thyroid collar and lead glasses 17(9.4%). The rate of wearing a radiation dosimeter was insufficient at 85 (47.2%). A few subjects know the radiation exposure dose of the procedure 33 (18.3%), and slightly about 46 (25.6%) had attended lectures on radiation protection. Cardiologists who were aware of the radiation exposure dose of each procedure were significantly more likely to wear dosimeters than those who were not (P<0.005). Experienced cardiac catheterization staff wear dosimeters more than the staff with fewer years of experience (P<0.011).In conclusion, it could be noticed that medical staff in cardiac catheterization laboratories need more radiation protection knowledge and education.

show abstract

Is routine re-imaging for high-grade renal injury needed? Retrospective analysis of 1500 abdominal trauma patients from a tertiary care trauma center over 11 years

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation Safety During Diagnosis and Treatment

Cited by 4 publications

References 178 publications

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

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

A Questionnaire Survey on Radiation Protection among Medical Staff Working in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory

Is routine re-imaging for high-grade renal injury needed? Retrospective analysis of 1500 abdominal trauma patients from a tertiary care trauma center over 11 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About