loading page

Evaluation of the Tendencies of Urology Residents in Different Training Centers in Turkey on the Use of Fluoroscopy in Operations
  • +3
  • Samet Senel,
  • Fatih Sandikci,
  • Ali Yasin Ozercan,
  • Emin Gurtan,
  • Salih Zeki Sonmez,
  • Hüseyin Cihan Demirel
Samet Senel
Ankara City Hospital

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Fatih Sandikci
Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyzat Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Ali Yasin Ozercan
Ankara City Hospital
Author Profile
Emin Gurtan
Yozgat Bozok University
Author Profile
Salih Zeki Sonmez
Istanbul Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Hüseyin Cihan Demirel
Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile


Aim: To evaluate the tendency, knowledge, awareness and behavior patterns of urology residents training at different institutions in Turkey about the use of fluoroscopy in operations. Methods: The 13-questioned survey prepared using “Google Forms©” as of 01.03.2021 was shared for four weeks in the “WhatsApp®” application group, which includes 279 urology residents studying with university hospitals and training and research hospitals in Turkey. One hundred and thirteen participants, who completed the questionnaire were included in the study. Results: Of the 113 urology residents included in the study, 56 (49.6%) were studying in university hospitals and 57 (50.4%) were in training and research hospitals. 67.3% of the residents stated that they never hesitated to participate in the operations which fluoroscopy was used. Additionally, the residents stated that, also 43.4% of the auxiliary healthcare staff frequently refrain from being involved in these cases(p <0.001). While 21 (37.5%) of the residents trained in the university hospital reported that they hesitated from these cases, this rate was found that 16 (28.2%) of the residents who were trained in the training and research hospitals and a significant difference was observed between two groups (p <0.016). Among residents, the rate of using radioprotective lead apron was 94.7%, and the rate of thyroid shield use was 98.2%. While the rate of using radiation protective glasses was 1.8%, it was learned that none of the residents used radioprotective gloves. Only 5.3% of the residents stated that they are trained in subjects about the harmful radiation effect. Conclusion: Urology residents in Turkey do not receive sufficient training on the harmful effects of fluoroscopy, which they frequently use in their daily practice. In addition, the residents whom training in university hospitals are more scared of the radiation exposure from fluoroscopy than their colleagues working in training and research hospitals.