Appropriate management reduces radiation exposure in daily urological practice. (18th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ozaki, Keisuke; Fukawa, Tomoya; Kawanaka, Takashi; Daizumoto, Kei; Sasaki, Yutaro; Ueno, Yoshiteru; Tsuda, Megumi; Kusuhara, Yoshito; Yamamoto, Yasuyo; Yamaguchi, Kunihisa; Takahashi, Masayuki; Kanayama, Hiro‐omi
• Is Part Of: International journal of urology. Volume 29:Number 10(2022)
• Page Start: 1207
• Page End: 1212
• Publication Date: 2022-07-18
• Subjects: radiation exposure -- urologist -- X‐ray fluoroscopy; Urology -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.6005
• DOI: 10.1111/iju.14971
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0919-8172

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To identify and raise awareness of the radiation exposure of urologists due to X‐ray fluoroscopic procedures in daily practice. Methods: This was a single‐center, cohort study of 30 consecutive patients who underwent periodic percutaneous or transurethral replacements of urinary tract catheters. A total of 55 replacements every 3 months with cases aligned were performed by a single urologist. The urologist's radiation exposure and the incident dose to patients per case were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters. In the latter 3‐month period, the pulse fluoroscopy condition was changed from 15 to 7.5 pulses per second, and collimation was added to the field of view. Results: In the analysis of all patients, the use of a modified pulse rate and collimation did not affect the fluoroscopy time, but it did significantly reduce the air kerma and dose area product; in addition, with respect to the medical exposure dose during percutaneous catheter replacement, fluoroscopy time was longer, but air kerma and dose area product showed significant decreases. As with decreases in medical exposure of patients, the equivalent dose for eye lenses of the urologist decreased from 1.2 mSv in the first 3‐month period to 0.2 mSv in the second 3‐month period. Similarly, the exposure dose for the extremities also decreased significantly, from 33.9 mSv to 8.1 mSv. Conclusions: Urologists are exposed to non‐negligible amounts of radiation due to fluoroscopy. Appropriate management such as modified pulse fluoroscopy condition and precautions are required.