Dergiler / Bingöl Üniversitesi Sağlık Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Tıbbi Görüntüleme Ünitelerinde Fiziksel Risk Etmenlerinin Eliminasyonu İçin Uzay Modeli

Space Model for the Elimination of Physical Risk Factors in Medical Imaging Units

Murat Deniz(İnönü Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü)0009-0009-3315-2274
Birgül Deniz(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0003-3480-6504
İsmail Bentli(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-3775-7341
Sayfa
8–21
Yayın Tarihi
2026-04-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Literatür, mevcut mimari düzenin çalışan ile cihaz arasında zorunlu fiziksel temas oluşturduğunu ve bu nedenle riskin kaynağında eliminasyonunun sağlanamadığını göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Hastanelerde Tıbbi Görüntüleme Teknolojileri (TGT), tanısal doğruluk açısından kritik öneme sahip olmakla birlikte çalışan sağlığı bakımından çok boyutlu fiziksel riskler barındırmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Çalışmada ilgili literatür kapsamlı olarak incelenmiş, fiziksel risk bileşenlerinin etkileşimleri değerlendirilmiş ve modelin teknik uygulanabilirliği mühendislik parametreleri üzerinden açıklanmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Literatür, mevcut mimari düzenin çalışan ile cihaz arasında zorunlu fiziksel temas oluşturduğunu ve bu nedenle riskin kaynağında eliminasyonunun sağlanamadığını göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Tıbbi görüntüleme · Fiziksel risk etmenleri · Radyasyon güvenliği

Özet

Hastanelerde Tıbbi Görüntüleme Teknolojileri (TGT), tanısal doğruluk açısından kritik öneme sahip olmakla birlikte çalışan sağlığı bakımından çok boyutlu fiziksel riskler barındırmaktadır. İyonize radyasyon, manyetik alan, gürültü, termal stres ve ergonomik zorlanmalar çalışanların maruz kaldığı başlıca tehlikeler arasında yer almaktadır. Literatür, mevcut mimari düzenin çalışan ile cihaz arasında zorunlu fiziksel temas oluşturduğunu ve bu nedenle riskin kaynağında eliminasyonunun sağlanamadığını göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, tıbbi görüntüleme ünitelerinde ortaya çıkan fiziksel risk faktörlerini mimari ve operasyonel düzeyde tamamen ortadan kaldırmayı hedefleyen “Uzay Modeli”ni geliştirmektir. Model; yatay vakumlu taşıma sistemi, kapsül tipi transfer birimi, çok katmanlı zırh yapısı, modüler kabin sistemi ve uzaktan komuta temelli işlem yönetimini içeren bütünleşik bir yapı olarak tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmada ilgili literatür kapsamlı olarak incelenmiş, fiziksel risk bileşenlerinin etkileşimleri değerlendirilmiş ve modelin teknik uygulanabilirliği mühendislik parametreleri üzerinden açıklanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, çalışan–cihaz temasının tamamen kesilmesi durumunda iyonize radyasyon ve elektromanyetik alan maruziyetinin teorik olarak sıfıra yakın düzeye indirilebildiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca model, ergonomik yükü azaltmakta ve operasyonel iş akışını standartlaştırarak güvenlik düzeyini artırmaktadır. Bu kapsamda Uzay Modeli, mevcut risk azaltma odaklı yaklaşımlardan farklı olarak riskin kaynağında ortadan kaldırıldığı yeni bir mimari paradigmaya işaret etmektedir.

Abstract

Medical imaging units play a central role in diagnostic accuracy; however, they expose healthcare workers to multiple physical hazards such as ionizing radiation, magnetic fields, noise, thermal stress, and ergonomic load. Previous research demonstrates that conventional architectural layouts require direct worker–equipment interaction, preventing the elimination of hazards at their source. The aim of this study is to develop the “Space Model,” a fully isolated architectural and operational system designed to eliminate physical risk factors in medical imaging environments. The model integrates a horizontal vacuum transport system, capsule-type patient transfer module, multi-layer shielding structure, modular imaging cabin, and remote-controlled operational workflow. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, and the interaction mechanisms of physical risk factors were analyzed. Technical feasibility was evaluated using engineering-based performance parameters. Findings indicate that complete physical separation between workers and imaging devices can theoretically reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields to near-zero levels. Moreover, the model minimizes ergonomic burden and enhances workflow standardization, thereby increasing overall safety. In this context, the Space Model represents a novel architectural paradigm that differs from traditional risk-reduction strategies by enabling true hazard elimination at the source.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Deniz, M., Deniz, B., Bentli, İ. (2026). Tıbbi Görüntüleme Ünitelerinde Fiziksel Risk Etmenlerinin Eliminasyonu İçin Uzay Modeli. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sağlık Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.58605/bingolsaglik.1881873

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (49)

  1. ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 103). 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003
  2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—An increasing source of radiation exposure. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(22):2277–2284. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149
  3. McJury M, Shellock FG. Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: A review. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2000;12(1):37–45.
  4. Vieira ER, Kumar S. Working postures: A literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2004;14(2):143–158.
  5. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: Estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet. 2004;363(9406):345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15433-0
  6. Osei E, Nuru F, Moore MJ. Assessment of occupational radiation doses of medical radiation workers in two community hospitals. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2020;192(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/RPD/NCAA190
  7. Miller DL, Balter S, Schueler BA, Wagner LK, Strauss KJ, Vañó E. Clinical radiation management for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Radiology. 2010;257(2):321-332. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091269
  8. Willis CE, Slovis TL. The ALARA concept in pediatric radiology. Pediatric Radiology. 2004;34(S3):S192–S197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1264-y
  9. Pandey BR. Rethinking occupational health and safety principles—a systems perspective. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 2025;55(6):1362-1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2024.2333555
  10. Zalk DM, Nelson DI. History and evaluation of control banding: A review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2008;5(5):330–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620801997916
  11. Schenck JF. Safety of strong, static magnetic fields. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2003;19(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10220
  12. Ravicz ME, Melcher JR, Kiang NYS. Acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2000;108(4):1683-1696. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1310190
  13. Manuele FA. Reviewing Heinrich. Professional Safety. 2011;56(10):52-61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48691159
  14. Schulte PA, Rinehart R, Okun A, Geraci CL, Heidel DS. National Prevention through Design (PtD) initiative. Journal of Safety Research. 2008;39(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.02.021
  15. Manuele FA. Advanced safety management: Focusing on Z10 and serious injury prevention. USA: John Wiley Publication; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118840900
  16. Soyal H, Ortabağ T, Hasde M. Ionizing radiation safety perception of hospital radiation exposed workers. International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering. 2024;10(4):1111-1119. https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.452
  17. Elshami W, Erdemir RU, Abuzaid MM, Cavli B, Issa B, Tekin HO. Occupational radiation dose assessment for nuclear medicine workers in Turkey: A comprehensive investigation. Journal of King Saud University-Science. 2022;34(4):102005.
  18. Ozturk, D., Sahin, Y., & Meletlioglu, E. (2023). Changes in some hematological parameters in radiology unit workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: Retrospective study. International Journal of Radiation Research, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.52547/ijrr.21.3.32
  19. Keskin A, Aci R, Arı M. The effect of ionizing radiation on health professionals working in the radiology department. Aurum Journal of Health Sciences. 2023;5(3):129-134. https://izlik.org/JA52SU33FH
  20. Inaba Y, Hitachi S, Watanuki M, Chida K. Occupational radiation dose to eye lenses in CT-guided interventions using MDCT-fluoroscopy. Diagnostics. 2021;11(4):646. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040646
  21. Otomo K, Inaba Y, Abe K, Onodera M, Suzuki T, Sota M, Haga Y, Suzuki M, Zuguchi M, Chida K. Spatial scattering radiation to the radiological technologist during medical mobile radiography. Bioengineering. 2023;10(2):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10020259
  22. Dorman T, Drever B, Plumridge S, Gregory K, Cooper M, Roderick A, Arruzza E. Radiation dose to staff from medical X-ray scatter in the orthopaedic theatre. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery Traumatology. 2023;33(7):3059–3065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03538-6
  23. UNSCEAR. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000 Report to the General Assembly. New York; 2000. https://doi.org/10.18356/136a8613-en
  24. Akan CA, Gümüş H, Akan H. Radiation exposure of patients and staff working in angiography and interventional radiology unit. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine. 2020;37(1):1-4. https://izlik.org/JA83TB94ZD
  25. Jaschke W, Schmuth M, Trianni A, Bartal G. Radiation-induced skin injuries to patients: What the interventional radiologist needs to know. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2017;40(8):1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1674-5
  26. Mittendorff L, Young A, Sim J. A narrative review of current and emerging MRI safety issues: What every MRI technologist (radiographer) needs to know. Journal of medical radiation sciences. 2022;69(2):250-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.546
  27. Stafford RJ. The physics of magnetic resonance imaging safety. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics. 2020;28(4):517-536.
  28. Shah A, Aran S. A review of magnetic resonance (MR) safety: the essentials to patient safety. Cureus. 2023;15(10):e47345. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47345
  29. Akbar AF, Sayyid ZN, Roberts DC, Hua J, Paez A, Cao D, Lauer AM, Ward BK. Acoustic Noise Levels in High‐field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners. OTO open. 2023;7(3):e79. https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.79
  30. Glans A, Wilén J, Hansson B, Audulv Å, Lindgren L. Managing acoustic noise within MRI: a qualitative interview study among Swedish radiographers. Radiography. 2024;30(3):889-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2024.04.002
  31. Bahaloo M, Davari MH, Sobhan M, Mirmohammadi SJ, Jalalian MT, Zare Sakhvidi MJ, Mehrparvar AH. Hearing thresholds changes after MRI 1.5 T of head and neck. Radiology research and practice. 2019;2019(1):8756579. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8756579
  32. Charney W, Hudson A. Back injury among healthcare workers: Causes, solutions, and impacts. CRC Press; 2003.
  33. Alelyani M, Gameraddin M, Khushayl AMA, Altowaijri AM, Qashqari MI, Alzahrani FAA, Gareeballah A. Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms among Saudi radiologists: a cross-sectional multi-centre study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2023;24(1):468. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06596-3
  34. Alomairy NA. Assessment of secondary radiation dose in radiology departments. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2023;16(4):100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2023.100726
  35. Joseph DS, Ibeanu IG, Zakari YI, Joseph DZ. radiographic room design and layout for radiation protection in some radio-diagnostic facilities in katsina state, nigeria. J Assoc Rad Niger. 2017;31(1):16-23. https://doi.org/10.82547/jrrs.vol31no1.87
  36. Fennell S, Howett D, Ryan T, Hone C, Kenny T, Cunningham N, Malone J, O'Reilly G, O'Connor U, Gallagher A, Sheahan N. The Design of Diagnostic Medical Facilities where Ionising Radiation is used. Technical Report, Ireland; 2009. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/21349909
  37. Sutton DG, Martin CJ. Diagnostic radiology—Facility. Practical Radiation Protection in Healthcare. Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1569272
  38. Saidu A, Abubakar A, Sokoto BH, Umar M, Abubakar U, Usman F, Bello G. Optimization of shielding barriers for feasible exposure to medical X-ray radiation. Caliphate Journal of Science and Technology. 2023;5(3):280-287. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/cajost.v5i3.5
  39. Ismail S, Che Ibrahim CKI, Belayutham S, Mat Isa CM, Cheung C, Manu P. Prevention through Design (PtD) educational elements in engineering, architectural and construction domain: A review. European Journal of Engineering Education. 2024;49(6):1265–1287. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2401068
  40. Samsudin NS, Khalil N, Mohammad MZ, Md Ajis A, Hamzah H, Che Ibrahim CKI, Manu P. An ontology to represent the prevention through design (PtD) concept in integrated project delivery (IPD) in the construction industry from an architectural perspective. Buildings. 2023;13(5):1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051128
  41. İSG. 6331 Sayılı İş Sağlığı Güvenliği Kanunu, Resmî Gazete Sayısı: 28339. 2012.
  42. IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. Applying radiation safety standards in diagnostic radiology and interventional procedures using x rays. World Health Organization (WHO), Safety Reports Series No. 39; 2006. https://inis.iaea.org/records/f165n-c9q55
  43. Behm M. Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept. Safety Science. 2005;43(8):589–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.04.002
  44. Cleary K, Nguyen C. State of the art in surgical robotics: clinical applications and technology challenges. Computer Aided Surgery. 2001;6(6):312-328. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929080109146301
  45. Yang GZ, Cambias J, Cleary K, Daimler E, Drake J, Dupont PE, Taylor RH. Medical robotics—Regulatory, ethical, and legal considerations for increasing levels of autonomy. Science robotics. 2017;2(4):eaam8638. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aam8638
  46. Haslam RA, Hide SA, Gibb AG, Gyi DE, Pavitt T, Atkinson S, Duff AR. Contributing factors in construction accidents. Applied Ergonomics. 2005;36(4):401-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.12.002
  47. Kaya K, Mansur F. Fiziksel Risk Faktörlerinin Tıbbi Görüntüleme Ünitelerindeki Sağlık Çalışanları Tarafından Risk Durumuna Göre Önceliklendirilmesi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2024;16(3):2028–2042. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1344638
  48. Avcı A, Aslan Y. Görüntüleme Hizmetleri Risk Değerlendirmesi: 5x5 Matris Yöntemi. Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Kuram ve Uygulama Dergisi. 2024;4(2):117–135. https://www.shkud.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/TR_C4_S2_4.pdf
  49. Ağuş M, Akbel E. Sağlık Çalışanlarında Fiziksel Risk Etmenlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. OHS Academy İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Akademi Dergisi. 2020;3(3):230–237. https://doi.org/10.38213/ohsacademy.782772