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.