Variables Affecting Radiation Exposure in Patients under Going Endo-Urological ProceduresParker SG*, Kommu SS and Ahmed M
Core Surgical Trainee, University College Hospital, London, UK
- *Corresponding Author:
- Samuel George Parker
Core Surgical Trainee, University College Hospital
59a Knatchbull Road, Camberwell, SE5 9QR, London, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: September 16, 2013; Accepted date: October 22, 2013; Published date: October 26, 2013
Citation: Parker SG, Kommu SS, Ahmed M (2013) Variables Affecting Radiation Exposure in Patients under Going Endo-Urological Procedures. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther 4:163. doi:10.4172/2155-9619.1000163
Copyright: © 2013 Parker SG, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Introduction: Previously we have published data showing how clinician awareness surrounding radiation doses from common diagnostic modalities is poor. Evidence suggests that radiation exposure, from diagnostic and interventional procedures is placing patients at a small but significant increased risk of malignancy. As the usage of radiation in endourological surgery increases, urologists need to have an understanding of the variables affecting perioperative radiation exposure. Here we look at how the operating consultant, the patient triage status (elective vs. emergency admission) and the endourological procedure performed impacts upon perioperative radiation exposure.
Method: One hundred patients, who had undergone an endourological procedure in 2012 were randomly selected. The image intensifiers were interrogated for stored data of radiation dose and screening times. Computerised patient records provided the consultant’s identity (A-D), the patient’s triage status and the exact endourological procedure performed.
Results: There was no difference in radiation exposure when comparing elective and emergency patients. Endourological procedures requiring therapeutic intervention led to higher levels of radiation exposure when compared with diagnostic endourological procedures (p value<0.05). The operating consultant significantly varied the radiation exposure. Consultant B’s radiation dosages and screening times were significantly lower compared to consultants A, C and D (p values<0.05).
Conclusion: The operating consultant causes a significant variation in the perioperative radiation dosage. This could be due to a subjective judgment about the importance of minimising perioperative radiation exposure. Alternatively it could be due to the consultant’s operating technique, the communication methods used with the radiographer or the consultant’s own awareness about the risks of radiation exposure. With the usage of perioperative radiation increasing, further studies are warranted to better understand the variables that affect and increase its use. This will allow future surgeons to consciously reduce perioperative exposure and patient harm.