Journals / Dicle Tıp Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 4

A questionnaire study about gonadal shield use of urologists

Ürologların gonad kalkanı kullanımı hakkında bir anket çalışması

Pages
485–491
Publication Date
2012-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The urologists should be informed in urological academic platforms about gonad protecting devices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Our aim is to reflect routines, awareness, and consciousness level of urologists about usage of gonadal shield (GS) in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Because of this objective a questionnaire which includes 15 questions was prepared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The urologists should be informed in urological academic platforms about gonad protecting devices.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gonad kalkanı · radyasyon · ürolog

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim is to reflect routines, awareness, and consciousness level of urologists about usage of gonadal shield (GS) in Turkey. Materials and methods: Because of this objective a questionnaire which includes 15 questions was prepared. The questionnaire was delivered to urologists in a Turkish Urology congress. Data derived from 271 urologists by face to face interview were evaluated. Results: Participant were urologists (n=271), consisted of professors (n=33), associate professors (n= 36), assistant professors (n= 36), specialists (n=94), and residents (n=81). According to the data obtained from the questionnaires, 22% of the participants acquired their first information about GS as a medical student, 44% during their residency training, and 14% of them had no information about GS at all. Besides 64% of them did not read any medical article about this subject until that time, and 54% them practically hadn\'t seen any GS during their urology practice. In 82% of the hospitals where participants were working hadn\'t had any GS, and 18% of the urologists had indicated that GS was available in their hospitals, and they used them once in a while. Urologists responded favorably (20%) or unfavorably (80 %) to the question of ‘Do you find yourself or your colleagues adequately sensitive, and mindful about GS use? Conclusions: Sensitivity and awareness about use of gonadal shields among Turkish urologists are not at a desired level and for this reason, it is not used widely. The urologists should be informed in urological academic platforms about gonad protecting devices.

Özet

Amaç: Amacımız Türkiye'de gonad kalkanı kullanma konusunda ürologların dikkat, farkındalık ve hassasiyet düzeylerini belirlemektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Bu amaçla 15 sorudan oluşan bir anket formu hazırlandı. Bu formlar bir ulusal üroloji kongresine katılan ürologlara dağıtıldı. Toplam 271 katılımcıdan yüz yüze görüşme sonucu elde edilen veriler incelendi. Bulgular: 271 katılımcıdan 33'ü profesör, 36'sı doçent, 36'sı yardımcı doçent, 94'ü uzman ve 81'i asistan idi. Katılımcıların %22'si bu konuda daha önce gonad kalkanı hakkında, bilgi sahibi değildi. %44'ü tıp fakültesinde, %14'ü asistanlık döneminde ilk kez bilgi sahibi olmuştu. %64 katılımcı gonad kalkanı konusunda hiçbir makale okumamıştı. %54'ü ise daha önce hiçbir gonad kalkanı modeli görmemişti. %82'si hastanelerinde böyle bir aparatın olmadığını veya kullanmadıklarını belirtti. %18'i ise gonad kalkanı kullandıklarını belirtti. Ürologların %80'i ''kendinizi ve meslektaşlarınızı gonad kalkanı kullanma konusunda yeterince dikkatli ve hassas buluyor musunuz? '' sorusuna hayır cevabını verdi. Sonuç: Türkiye'deki ürologlar arasında gonad kalkanı kullanma konusunda farkındalık ve hassasiyet yeterli düzeyde değildir ve bu yüzden kullanımı yaygın değildir. Ürologlar gonad koruyucu araçlar hakkında ürolojik akademik platformlar tarafından bilgilendirilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SANCAKTUTAR, A. A., ZİYPAK, T., ADANUR, Ş., SÖYLEMEZ, H., HAMİDİ, C., BOZKURT, Y., ATAR, M., BODAKÇİ, M. N. (2012). A questionnaire study about gonadal shield use of urologists. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 4, 485–491. https://ajindex.com/articles/485362

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Andrews SF, Horwitz EM, Feigenberg SJ, et al. Does a de- lay in external beam radiation therapy after tissue diagnosis affect outcome for men with prostate carcinoma? Cancer 2005; 104(2):299-304.
  2. Mamut AE, Afshar K, Mickelson JJ, Macnelly AE. Surgical case volume in Canadian urology residency: a comparison of trends in open and minimally invasive surgical experi- ence. J Endourol 2011; 25(6):1063-7.
  3. Ferrandino MN, Bagrodia A, Pierre SA, et al. Radiation ex- posure in the acute and short-term management of uroli- thiasis at 2 academic centers. J Urol 2009; 181(2):668-72. Goodhead DT. Understanding and characterisation of the risks to human health from exposure to low levels of radia- tion. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009(1-2); 137:109-17. Hirschmann PN. Transfer of radiographs. Br Dent J 1999;187(9):463-4. Richardson RB. Past and revised risk estimates for cancer induced by irradiation and their influence on dose limits. Br J Radiol 1990; 63(748):235-45.
  4. Almen A, Mattsson S. The radiation dose to children from X-ray examinations of the pelvis and the urinary tract. Br J Radiol 1995; 68(810):604-13.
  5. Mazonakis M, Damilakis J, Varveris H, Gourtsouiannis N. Radiation dose to testes and risk of infertility from radio- therapy for rectal cancer. Oncol Rep 2006; 15(3):729-33.
  6. Sharp C, Harrison J. NRPB will provide advice on radia- tion. National Radiological Protection Board. BMJ 1995; 311(7015):1300. Hohl C, Mahnken AH, Klotz E, et al. Radiation dose reduc- tion to the male gonads during MDCT: the effectiveness of a lead shield. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184(1):128-30.
  7. Musolino SV, DeFranco J, Schlueck R. The ALARA prin- ciple in the context of a radiological or nuclear emergency. Health Phys 2008; 94(2):109-11.
  8. Arrangoiz R, Opreanu RC, Mosher BD, Morrison CA, Ste- vens P, Kepros JP. Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric brain CT is not associated with missed injuries or delayed diagnosis. Am Surg 2010; 76(11):1255-9. Dunn PM. Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen (1845-1923), the dis- covery of x rays and perinatal diagnosis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001; 84(2):138-9.
  9. Hadamitzky C, Pabst R, Vogt PM, Radtke C. Treatment op- tions for head and neck lymphoedema after tumour resec- tion and radiotherapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64(9):1226-7. Rogers LF. Dose reduction in CT: how low can we go? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179(2):299. Wong CS, Huang B, Sin HK, Wong WL, Yiu KL, Chu Yiu Ching T. A questionnaire study assessing local physicians, radiologists and intern