Results
One hundred and thirteen participant urology residents completed the questionnaire. Of the residents, 56 (49.6%) were training in university hospitals and 57 (50.4%) were in training and research hospitals. Eighty-one (71.7%) of the residents were between the ages of 25-30 and 60 (53.1%) were in 1-3 years of their education. One hundred and twelve (99.1%) of the participants reported that they preferred to use fluoroscopy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), 75 (66.4%) of them preferred in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and 71 (62.8%) preferred in nephrostomy/double J (DJ) insertion operations.
In the light of the answers given by the participants, it was revealed that 67.3% of the residents never hesitated to enter the cases requiring fluoroscopy, while it was learned that 43.4% of the auxiliary healthcare staff often avoided these cases. According to this data, a statistically significant difference was found between the two healthcare worker groups (p <0.001). In addition, when the participants were divided into two groups according to the institution they training in, 21 (37.5%) of the residents in university hospitals reported that they hesitated to participate in operations that fluoroscopy was used, while 16 (28.2%) of the residents in training and research hospitals stated that they had same anxiety. This difference was also found to be statistically significant too (p = 0.016).
According to the answers, 39 (69.6%) of the residents in university hospitals stated that they preferred methods (even if it requires more sessions of operations) in which they would not use fluoroscopy at different frequencies, while in training and research hospitals this number was 33 (57.9%), and the difference was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.042).
It was concluded in the study that, 68.1% of the residents and auxiliary healthcare staff did not use dosimeters in any operation which performed with fluoroscopy. Also obtained from this study that, only six of the residents (5.3%) received training about the harmful radiation effect of fluoroscopy, radiation protection method, etc. According to the answers of questions about the necessary measures to reduce the effect of ionizing radiation, 107 of the participants (94.7%) reported that they used lead aprons in cases where fluoroscopy was used, 111 (98.2%) of them used thyroid shields, while only two (1.8%) of them used radioprotective glasses reported that they use. It was learned that none of the residents was using the radioprotective gloves.
Finally, 106 of the residents (98.2%) answered ”no” to the question of ”Do you think that protective equipment is regularly checked for effectiveness?”. And, 109 (96.5%) residents answered as “I don’t know/I don’t do” the question of “Do you know / do you perform, what should be done to reduce the harmful radiation effect after fluoroscopy?” The data about the answers given by the residents to the survey are shown in Table 1.