A questionnaire study about gonadal shield use of urologists

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 39 Sayı: 4, 485 - 491, 01.12.2012

Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar Tevfik Ziypak Şenol Adanur Haluk Söylemez Cihat Hamidi Yaşar Bozkurt Murat Atar Mehmet Nuri Bodakçi

https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2012.04.0187

Cited By: 1

Öz

Objectives: Our aim is to reflect routines, awareness, and consciousness level of urologists about usage of gonadal shield (GS) in Turkey. Materials and methods: Because of this objective a questionnaire which includes 15 questions was prepared. The questionnaire was delivered to urologists in a Turkish Urology congress. Data derived from 271 urologists by face to face interview were evaluated. Results: Participant were urologists (n=271), consisted of professors (n=33), associate professors (n= 36), assistant professors (n= 36), specialists (n=94), and residents (n=81). According to the data obtained from the questionnaires, 22% of the participants acquired their first information about GS as a medical student, 44% during their residency training, and 14% of them had no information about GS at all. Besides 64% of them did not read any medical article about this subject until that time, and 54% them practically hadn\'t seen any GS during their urology practice. In 82% of the hospitals where participants were working hadn\'t had any GS, and 18% of the urologists had indicated that GS was available in their hospitals, and they used them once in a while. Urologists responded favorably (20%) or unfavorably (80 %) to the question of ‘Do you find yourself or your colleagues adequately sensitive, and mindful about GS use? Conclusions: Sensitivity and awareness about use of gonadal shields among Turkish urologists are not at a desired level and for this reason, it is not used widely. The urologists should be informed in urological academic platforms about gonad protecting devices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gonad shield, questionnaire survey, radiation, urologist

Ürologların gonad kalkanı kullanımı hakkında bir anket çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Amacımız Türkiye'de gonad kalkanı kullanma konusunda ürologların dikkat, farkındalık ve hassasiyet düzeylerini belirlemektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Bu amaçla 15 sorudan oluşan bir anket formu hazırlandı. Bu formlar bir ulusal üroloji kongresine katılan ürologlara dağıtıldı. Toplam 271 katılımcıdan yüz yüze görüşme sonucu elde edilen veriler incelendi. Bulgular: 271 katılımcıdan 33'ü profesör, 36'sı doçent, 36'sı yardımcı doçent, 94'ü uzman ve 81'i asistan idi. Katılımcıların %22'si bu konuda daha önce gonad kalkanı hakkında, bilgi sahibi değildi. %44'ü tıp fakültesinde, %14'ü asistanlık döneminde ilk kez bilgi sahibi olmuştu. %64 katılımcı gonad kalkanı konusunda hiçbir makale okumamıştı. %54'ü ise daha önce hiçbir gonad kalkanı modeli görmemişti. %82'si hastanelerinde böyle bir aparatın olmadığını veya kullanmadıklarını belirtti. %18'i ise gonad kalkanı kullandıklarını belirtti. Ürologların %80'i ''kendinizi ve meslektaşlarınızı gonad kalkanı kullanma konusunda yeterince dikkatli ve hassas buluyor musunuz? '' sorusuna hayır cevabını verdi. Sonuç: Türkiye'deki ürologlar arasında gonad kalkanı kullanma konusunda farkındalık ve hassasiyet yeterli düzeyde değildir ve bu yüzden kullanımı yaygın değildir. Ürologlar gonad koruyucu araçlar hakkında ürolojik akademik platformlar tarafından bilgilendirilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gonad kalkanı, radyasyon, ürolog, anket çalışması

Kaynakça

• Andrews SF, Horwitz EM, Feigenberg SJ, et al. Does a de- lay in external beam radiation therapy after tissue diagnosis affect outcome for men with prostate carcinoma? Cancer 2005; 104(2):299-304.
• Mamut AE, Afshar K, Mickelson JJ, Macnelly AE. Surgical case volume in Canadian urology residency: a comparison of trends in open and minimally invasive surgical experi- ence. J Endourol 2011; 25(6):1063-7.
• Ferrandino MN, Bagrodia A, Pierre SA, et al. Radiation ex- posure in the acute and short-term management of uroli- thiasis at 2 academic centers. J Urol 2009; 181(2):668-72.
• Goodhead DT. Understanding and characterisation of the risks to human health from exposure to low levels of radia- tion. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009(1-2); 137:109-17.
• Hirschmann PN. Transfer of radiographs. Br Dent J 1999;187(9):463-4.
• Richardson RB. Past and revised risk estimates for cancer induced by irradiation and their influence on dose limits. Br J Radiol 1990; 63(748):235-45.
• Almen A, Mattsson S. The radiation dose to children from X-ray examinations of the pelvis and the urinary tract. Br J Radiol 1995; 68(810):604-13.
• Mazonakis M, Damilakis J, Varveris H, Gourtsouiannis N. Radiation dose to testes and risk of infertility from radio- therapy for rectal cancer. Oncol Rep 2006; 15(3):729-33.
• Sharp C, Harrison J. NRPB will provide advice on radia- tion. National Radiological Protection Board. BMJ 1995; 311(7015):1300.
• Hohl C, Mahnken AH, Klotz E, et al. Radiation dose reduc- tion to the male gonads during MDCT: the effectiveness of a lead shield. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184(1):128-30.
• Musolino SV, DeFranco J, Schlueck R. The ALARA prin- ciple in the context of a radiological or nuclear emergency. Health Phys 2008; 94(2):109-11.
• Arrangoiz R, Opreanu RC, Mosher BD, Morrison CA, Ste- vens P, Kepros JP. Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric brain CT is not associated with missed injuries or delayed diagnosis. Am Surg 2010; 76(11):1255-9.
• Dunn PM. Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen (1845-1923), the dis- covery of x rays and perinatal diagnosis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001; 84(2):138-9.
• Hadamitzky C, Pabst R, Vogt PM, Radtke C. Treatment op- tions for head and neck lymphoedema after tumour resec- tion and radiotherapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64(9):1226-7.
• Rogers LF. Dose reduction in CT: how low can we go? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179(2):299.
• Wong CS, Huang B, Sin HK, Wong WL, Yiu KL, Chu Yiu Ching T. A questionnaire study assessing local physicians, radiologists and interns’ knowledge and practice pertaining to radiation exposure related to radiological imaging. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(3):264-8.
• Heyer CM, Hansmann J, Peters SA, Lemburg SP. Paediatri- cian awareness of radiation dose and inherent risks in chest imaging studies--a questionnaire study. Eur J Radiol 2010; 76(2):288-93.
• Shiralkar S, Rennie A, Snow M, Galland RB, Lewis MH, Gower-Thomas K. Doctors’ knowledge of radiation expo- sure: questionnaire study. BMJ 2003; 327(7411):371-2.
• McCusker MW, de Blacam C, Keogan M, McDermott R, Beddy P. Survey of medical students and junior house doc- tors on the effects of medical radiation: is medical educa- tion deficient? Ir J Med Sci 2009; 178(4):479-83.
• Schindera ST, Treier R, von Allmen G, et al. An education and training programme for radiological institutes: impact on the reduction of the CT radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(10):2039-45.
• Liu X, Yan SW, Ding XP, Zhang N, Lu HO, Tang J. [Evalu- ation of radiation damage to the sperm DNA of radar opera- tors]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2003; 9(7):494-6.
• Kasuba V, Rozgaj R, Jazbec A. Chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes of Croatian hospital staff occupationally exposed to low levels of ionising radiation. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 2008; 59(4):251-9.
• Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J, Smith PH, Workman A. Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol 2000; 73(865):43- 50.
• Fawcett SL, Barter SJ. The use of gonad shielding in paediatric hip and pelvis radiographs. Br J Radiol 2009; 82(977):363-70.
• Wainwright AM. Shielding reproductive organs of ortho- paedic patients during pelvic radiography. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2000; 82(5):318-21.
• Theocharopoulos N, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Papa- dokostakis G, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N. Occu- pational exposure from common fluoroscopic projections used in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85(9):1698-703.
• Harrison RM. Low energy X-ray depth dose data for use in radiotherapy--comments on the review of BJR Supplement 17. Br J Radiol 1997; 70(837):946-9.
• Wall BF, Hart D. Revised radiation doses for typical X- ray examinations. Report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. National Radiological Protection Board. Br J Ra- diol 1997; 70(833):437-9.
• Dunn J, Steginga SK, Rose P, Scott J, Allison R. Evaluating patient education materials about radiation therapy. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 52(3):325-32.
• Stoeva M, Cvetkov A. e-Learning system ERM for medi- cal radiation physics education. Med Eng Phys 2005; 27(7):605-9.