Low Back Pain (LBP), work and absenteeism.

BACKGROUND: Occupational physical demands are commonly assumed the cause of work-related Low Back Pain (LBP) and absenteeism. OBJECTIVES: To analyse relationships between LBP at work, physical demands and absenteeism. METHODS: Workers filled out a questionnaire on socio-demographic and work-related factors, general health, LBP (number of episodes in a 12-month period, pain severity and intensity), and occupational hazards related with physical demands. RESULTS: 735 workers completed the questionnaire (male n = 359). A high proportion of workers n = 507 (69%), from different occupational backgrounds, reported at least one LBP episode in the previous 12-month period. The highest ratio of subjects with more than 6 episodes of LBP per year was found among public services employees (31.8%) and the lowest ratio among administrative workers (10.3%). The highest ratio of workers (39%) were classified as sedentary workers, 34% of workers having a low or moderate level of physical demands in their work, and 27% reported high levels of physical demands in their work. There was a 4 % absenteeism rate in a 12-month period, which was significantly higher in the group with physically demanding work. Those subjects with higher physical requirements at work have increased odds of having more than 3 episodes of LBP during the previous year (p < 0.05) in comparison with subjects with more sedentary jobs and those with low or moderate physical demands. High intensity work, compared to sedentary work, is associated with an increased probability of being absent of work because of LBP in a previous 12-month period (OR = 3.12; CI 1.23-7.89; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest there is an association between highly physically demanding jobs, LBP and absenteeism. These results may contribute to the improvement of LBP assessment and prevention programs in Occupational Health Services.

The importance of protection glasses during neuroangiographies: A study on radiation exposure at the lens of the primary operator.

BACKGROUND: In interventional neuroradiology, few operators routinely use radiation protection glasses. Moreover, in most centers, radiation dose data only accounts for whole body dose without specific information on lens dose. In 2012, the International Commission on Radiological Protection advised that the threshold limit value for the lens should be 20 mSv/year instead of the previous 150 mSv/year limit. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiation dose in the operator's lens during real diagnostic and interventional neuroangiographies, either using or without lead protection glasses. METHODS: Using the Educational Direct Dosimeter (EDD30 dosimeter), accumulated radiation dose in the lens was measured in 13 neuroangiographies: seven diagnostic and six interventional. Operators with and without radiation protection glasses were included and the sensor was placed near their left eye, closest to the radiation beam. RESULTS: Without glasses, the corrected mean dose of radiation in the lens was 8.02 µSv for diagnostic procedures and 168.57 µSv for interventional procedures. Using glasses, these values were reduced to 1.74 µSv and 33.24 µSv, respectively. CONCLUSION: Considering 20 mSv as the suggested annual limit of equivalent dose in the lens, neuroradiologists may perform up to 2,494 diagnostic procedures per year without protecting glasses, a number that increases to 11,494 when glasses are used consistently. Regarding intervention, a maximum of 119 procedures per year is advised if glasses are not used, whereas up to 602 procedures/year may be performed using this protection. Therefore, neuroradiologists should always wear radiation protection glasses.