Dataset Information

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To assess radiation exposure-related work history and risk of cataract and cataract surgery among radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP). METHODS:This retrospective study included 35?751 radiologic technologists who reported being cataract-free at baseline (1994-1998) and completed a follow-up questionnaire (2013-2014). Frequencies of assisting with 21 types of FGIP and use of radiation protection equipment during five time periods (before 1970, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009) were derived from an additional self-administered questionnaire in 2013-2014. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for self-reported cataract diagnosis and cataract surgery were estimated according to FGIP work history. RESULTS:During follow-up, 9372 technologists reported incident physician-diagnosed cataract; 4278 of incident cases reported undergoing cataract surgery. Technologists who ever assisted with FGIP had increased risk for cataract compared with those who never assisted with FGIP (RR: 1.18, 95%?CI 1.11 to 1.25). Risk increased with increasing cumulative number of FGIP; the RR for technologists who assisted with >5000?FGIP compared with those who never assisted was 1.38 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.53; p trend <0.001). These associations were more pronounced for FGIP when technologists were located ?3 feet (?0.9?m) from the patient compared with >3 feet (>0.9 m) (RRs for >5000 at ?3 feet vs never FGIP were 1.48, 95%?CI 1.27 to 1.74 and 1.15, 95%?CI 0.98 to 1.35, respectively; pdifference=0.04). Similar risks, although not statistically significant, were observed for cataract surgery. CONCLUSION:Technologists who reported assisting with FGIP, particularly high-volume FGIP within 3 feet of the patient, had increased risk of incident cataract. Additional investigation should evaluate estimated dose response and medically validated cataract type.

SUBMITTER: Velazquez-Kronen R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686674 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

Velazquez-Kronen Raquel R Borrego David D Gilbert Ethel S ES Miller Donald L DL Moysich Kirsten B KB Freudenheim Jo L JL Wactawski-Wende Jean J Cahoon Elizabeth K EK Little Mark P MP Millen Amy E AE Balter Stephen S Alexander Bruce H BH Simon Steven L SL Linet Martha S MS Kitahara Cari M CM

Occupational and environmental medicine 20190319 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess radiation exposure-related work history and risk of cataract and cataract surgery among radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP).<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective study included 35 751 radiologic technologists who reported being cataract-free at baseline (1994-1998) and completed a follow-up questionnaire (2013-2014). Frequencies of assisting with 21 types of FGIP and use of radiation protection equipment durin ...[more]

PMID: 30890565

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveInformation is limited on changes over time in the types of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and associated radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists.Materials and methodsOur study included 12,571 U.S. radiologic technologists who were certified for at least 2 years in 1926-1982 and who reported in a 2012-2013 survey that they ever performed or assisted with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. They completed a mailed questionnaire in 2013-2014 describing their detailed work practices for 21 fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures and associated radiation safety practices from the 1950s through 2009.ResultsOverall, the proportion of technologists who reported working with therapeutic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including percutaneous coronary interventions, increased over time, whereas the proportion of technologists who worked with diagnostic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including diagnostic cardiovascular catheterization and neuroangiographic procedures, decreased. We also observed substantial increases in the median number of times per month that technologists worked with diagnostic cardiovascular catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions. In each time period, most technologists reported consistently (≥ 75% of work time) wearing radiation monitoring badges and lead aprons during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. However, fewer than 50% of the technologists reported consistent use of thyroid shields, lead glasses, and room shields during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, even in more recent time periods.ConclusionThis study provides a detailed historical assessment of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists from the 1950s through 2009. Results can be used in conjunction with badge dose data to estimate organ radiation dose for studies of radiation-related health risks in radiologic technologists who have worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.

Project description:Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P = .96) or those who wore two badges (P = .23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquartile range, 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P = .18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Karellas in this issue.

Project description:Background:The use of fluoroscopically-guided interventional (FGI) procedures by orthopedic surgeons has been increasing. This study aimed to investigate the occupational radiation exposure among orthopedic surgeons in South Korea. Methods:A nationwide survey of orthopedic surgeons was conducted in South Korea in October 2017. The dosimetry data of the participants were obtained from the National Dosimetry Registry. The orthopedic surgeons were categorized by job specialty [spine or trauma specialists, other orthopedic specialists, and residents], and descriptive statistics for the demographics and work-related characteristics were presented. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors for the orthopedic surgeons who were not linked with the dosimetry data. Results:Among the total participants (n?=?513), 40.5% of the orthopedic surgeons spent more than 50% of their time working with the FGI procedures when compared with their overall work. The average frequency of the FGI procedures among the orthopedic surgeons was 12.3?days per month. Less than 30% of the participants were regularly provided with radiation monitoring badges. The proportion of subjects who always wore lead aprons and thyroid shields were 52 and 29%, respectively. The residents group experienced more unfavorable working conditions of radiation exposure than the other specialists. The dosimetry data were not significantly linked among the residents (odds ratio [OR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.95) and orthopedic surgeons working at small hospitals (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.05-21.51). Conclusions:Although orthopedic surgeons often performed FGI procedures, they wore protective gear less frequently, and a large proportion of orthopedic surgeons were not monitored by the national radiation dosimetry system. As the number of radiation procedures performed by the orthopedic surgeons increases, more intensive approaches are needed to reduce radiation exposure, especially for spine and trauma surgeons.

Dataset Information

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

Publications

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets