Urology · 1996
Radiation risk to the urologist during endourologic procedures, and a new shield that reduces exposure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Giblin J G, Rubenstein J, Taylor A, Pahira J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: With the increasing use of endourologic procedures to diagnose and treat urologic problems, the urologist's exposure to radiation from fluoroscopy becomes an important safety consideration. Although collimation of the x-ray beam generally prevents direct radiation exposure by the urologist, the patient absorbs radiation during the procedure and becomes a secondary source of exposure through radiation scatter.
METHODS: We measured radiation exposure to the urologist during endourologic procedures using standard body shields and thyroid collars. We repeated our surveys using a newly designed urologic surgery radiation shield.
RESULTS: We found dose rates to the urologist of up to 1100 mrem per hour of flouroscopy time. The maximum yearly whole-body exposure as recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection is 5000 mrem, or 5 rem.
CONCLUSIONS: Urologists should be cognizant of this radiation risk, and the concepts of time, distance, and shielding are critically important to know in efforts to reduce radiation exposure. We introduce a newly designed fluoroscopic drape which reduces the radiation dosage to the urologist from scatter nearly 70-fold. We found this shield to be very practical and easy to use, and we offer it as an effective safeguard against secondary radiation exposure.
METHODS: We measured radiation exposure to the urologist during endourologic procedures using standard body shields and thyroid collars. We repeated our surveys using a newly designed urologic surgery radiation shield.
RESULTS: We found dose rates to the urologist of up to 1100 mrem per hour of flouroscopy time. The maximum yearly whole-body exposure as recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection is 5000 mrem, or 5 rem.
CONCLUSIONS: Urologists should be cognizant of this radiation risk, and the concepts of time, distance, and shielding are critically important to know in efforts to reduce radiation exposure. We introduce a newly designed fluoroscopic drape which reduces the radiation dosage to the urologist from scatter nearly 70-fold. We found this shield to be very practical and easy to use, and we offer it as an effective safeguard against secondary radiation exposure.