Estado actual de la protección radiológica en procedimientos endourológicos en España / Current status of radiological protection in endourological procedures in Spain

Objetivo: Conocer el grado de formación en protección radiológica (PR) de los urólogos españoles que realizan técnicas endourológicas, así como analizar el empleo de medidas de control y protección frente a radiaciones ionizantes. Material y métodos: Encuesta realizada mediante la Plataforma de Investigación de Estudios Multicéntricos (PIEM) a los 1.894 asociados de la Asociación Española de Urología, entre abril y octubre de 2015. El cuestionario comprende 21 preguntas que interrogan sobre la actividad endourológica realizada, la formación en PR y el empleo de medidas protectoras y de dosimetría personal. Se obtuvo un 17% de respondedores, siendo finalmente válidas para análisis 238 encuestas. Resultados: El 63% de los encuestados no tenían ningún tipo de formación en PR, el 25% poseían acreditación de primer nivel y únicamente un 12% de segundo nivel. El empleo de dosimetría de solapa, muñeca y cristalino era realizada por un 57, 27 y 2% de los urólogos, respectivamente. El uso de medidas de protección frente a radiaciones resultó ser insuficiente. El 53% de los urólogos con mayor riesgo de exposición no tenían ninguna formación en PR, un 30% no usaban dosímetro de solapa y un 40% no empleaban ni delantal ni collar tiroideo durante los procedimientos endourológicos. Conclusiones: La formación en PR, el control de dosis y el empleo de medidas de protección frente a radiaciones ionizantes es insuficiente, incluso en aquellos profesionales más expuestos a radiaciones. Es fundamental corregir estas graves deficiencias en PR tanto a nivel individual como de servicios de urología, sociedades científicas y autoridades sanitarias

Objective: To discover the extent of training in radiological protection (RP) of Spanish urologists who perform endourological procedures, and to analyse the use of on ionising radiation control and protection measures. Material and methods: A survey conducted through the Plataforma de Investigación de Estudios Multicéntricos (PIEM) (Multicentre Study Research Platform) on the 1,894 associates of the Spanish Association of Urology, between April and October 2015. The questionnaire comprised 21 questions on endourological activity undertaken, RP training, and the use of protective measures, and personal dosimetry. Seventeen percent responded, and 238 surveys were eventually validated for study. Results: Sixty-three percent of the respondents had received no type of RP training, 25% had first level accreditation, and only 12% second level. Fifty-seven percent, 27%, and 2% of the urologists used flap, wrist and crystalline dosimetry respectively. Use of radiation protection measures was insufficient. Fifty-three percent of the urologists at greatest risk of exposure had had no training in RP, 30% did not use flap dosimetry, and 40% used neither an apron or thyroid collar during the endourological procedures. Conclusions: RP training, dosis monitoring, and the use of ionising radiation protective measures are insufficient, even by practitioners most exposed to radiation. It is essential that these serious shortcomings in RP are corrected, at the level of the individual, in urology departments, scientific societies, and the health authorities

Current status of radiological protection in endourological procedures in Spain. / Estado actual de la protección radiológica en procedimientos endourológicos en España.

OBJECTIVE: To discover the extent of training in radiological protection (RP) of Spanish urologists who perform endourological procedures, and to analyse the use of on ionising radiation control and protection measures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey conducted through the Plataforma de Investigación de Estudios Multicéntricos (PIEM) (Multicentre Study Research Platform) on the 1,894 associates of the Spanish Association of Urology, between April and October 2015. The questionnaire comprised 21 questions on endourological activity undertaken, RP training, and the use of protective measures, and personal dosimetry. Seventeen percent responded, and 238 surveys were eventually validated for study. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of the respondents had received no type of RP training, 25% had first level accreditation, and only 12% second level. Fifty-seven percent, 27%, and 2% of the urologists used flap, wrist and crystalline dosimetry respectively. Use of radiation protection measures was insufficient. Fifty-three percent of the urologists at greatest risk of exposure had had no training in RP, 30% did not use flap dosimetry, and 40% used neither an apron or thyroid collar during the endourological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: RP training, dosis monitoring, and the use of ionising radiation protective measures are insufficient, even by practitioners most exposed to radiation. It is essential that these serious shortcomings in RP are corrected, at the level of the individual, in urology departments, scientific societies, and the health authorities.