ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: The use of intra-operative image intensifier (II) has increased in urological practice as the mainstay of stone surgery is performed endoscopically. Here we examine the radiation exposure to the groin of the urologist performed endoscopic stone surgery. Our primary aim was to assess whether urologists are exposed to potentially avoidable radiation exposure in the seated position when using vest and skirt lead protection. We hypothesize that the level of exposure is negligible and should not influence surgeon decision on seated versus standing or on lead apron versus skirt and vest combination protective wear. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicentre study across all public hospitals in the Hunter New England Area Health Network offering Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Routinely, servicing a very large population base, the number of laser lithotripsy cases are quite high however during our research period the coronavirus pandemic diminished the number of elective cases performed. Because of this, we included a total of 50 cases in this study. Small multidimensional-reading dosimeters were worn on the medial aspect of both upper thighs of the urologist under the lead skirt as well as a third dosimeter worn on the outside of the lead protective skirt. All cases were performed with the II in an under-couch position and all cases included were either ureteroscopy or pyeloscopy with laser destruction of urinary stones. In one centre, all surgery was performed by a consultant urologist whilst in another it was all performed by a registrar. Screening time and total dose delivered were prospectively collected using the local network picture archiving and communication system (PACS). This data was analysed by an onsite physicist and collated. After calculating mean and median radiation dose exposures for each dosimeter and grouping those worn under the skirt, comparison was made between dosimeters worn under skirt versus over skirt and Results: Lead gowns reduced radiation dose exposure by 87% (p = <0.01);99% on the side opposite the II and by 76% on the same side of the II (p = 0.2). Mean total dose area product was 88.9 GyCm2 with a mean screening time of 80 seconds per case (range 12-311 seconds). Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that there is no significant exposure risk in a seated position with vest and skirt combination lead protective wear. An unexpected result was the difference in exposure between the side closest versus furthest away from the image intensifier.