Level of knowledge on radiation exposure and compliance to wearing protective equipment: where do endourologists stand? An ESUT/EULIS survey

Purpose Fluoroscopy is valuable in modern endourology. We present the results of a survey where compliance to radiation safety measures was tested according to surgical exposure, and level of understanding of the radiation rules and risks associated with it. Methods A 52-item, anonymous questionnair...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:World journal of urology 2020-03, Vol.38 (3), p.761-768
Main Authors: Tzelves, Lazaros, Somani, Bhaskar, Knoll, Thomas, Kamphuis, Guido, Sarica, Kemal, Seitz, C., Liatsikos, E., Skolarikos, Andreas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Medical Centers
Adult
Age Factors
Endoscopy
Female
Fluoroscopy
Fluoroscopy - adverse effects
Gloves
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Nephrology
Occupational Exposure - prevention & control
Oncology
Original Article
Personal Protective Equipment
Private Sector
Professional Competence
Public Sector
Radiation Exposure - prevention & control
Radiation measurement
Radiation protection
Statistical analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires
Thyroid
Urologists
Urology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Fluoroscopy is valuable in modern endourology. We present the results of a survey where compliance to radiation safety measures was tested according to surgical exposure, and level of understanding of the radiation rules and risks associated with it. Methods A 52-item, anonymous questionnaire, structured by 6 ESUT/EULIS experts was distributed at 3 different endourological meetings during 2017–2018. Main aim was to evaluate level of knowledge on radiation physics and the protective measures taken against radiation exposure by participants. Fisher’s exact test, Kruskal–Wallis test and ROC curve were used for statistical analysis. Results 211 responses were evaluated. Number of correct answers (median 7.00) differed significantly according to age ( p  = 0.001), working position ( p  = 0.005), working field ( p  
ISSN:0724-4983
1433-8726
DOI:10.1007/s00345-019-02807-6