Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41552082›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Radiation Protection Compliance in Fluoroscopy-Assisted Procedures: A Prospective Audit in Operating Theatres.

Abdulshakor Ali, Kumaresan Balasundram, Sabina Gunzler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abdulshakor AliTrauma and Orthopaedics, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, GBR.
Kumaresan BalasundramRadiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, GBR.
Sabina GunzlerRadiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFluoroscopy-assisted procedures expose operating theatre staff to ionising radiation, with the thyroid, eyes, and hands being particularly vulnerable. Despite established protection protocols, compliance remains inconsistent across clinical roles.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate adherence to radiation protection protocols, particularly thyroid shielding, among theatre staff during fluoroscopy-assisted procedures, identify compliance gaps, and propose targeted interventions. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective audit was conducted over 10 weeks (May to August 2025) in the operating theatres of a level 1 major trauma centre (MTC) in the United Kingdom. Observational data were collected on thyroid protection use, supplemented by dosimetry and adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) checklists. A total of 712 (100%) staff members were observed during 91 fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Notably, the audit was conducted in a blinded manner; no theatre staff were aware that radiation protection behaviour was being monitored, apart from the radiographers. This approach ensured that the data reflected authentic staff conduct without being influenced by observational bias. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in compliance across roles and specialities, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

resultsAmong the 712 (100%) staff members assessed during 91 operations, 555 (78.0%) demonstrated full compliance with lead gown and thyroid protection protocols. However, 157 (22.0%) were non-compliant with thyroid protection. Of these, roughly 150 (21%) wore a lead gown without a thyroid shield, and seven (1.0%) wore neither a gown nor a thyroid shield. When examining the distribution of non-compliant cases across operation types, 79.1% (n = 72) occurred during trauma and orthopaedic surgeries, 17.6% (n = 16) during spine surgeries, and 3.3% (n = 3) during other procedures. Chi-square analysis revealed no statistically significant association between operation type and PPE non-compliance (p = 0.0995, df = 2), exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.05. When analysed by role, non-compliance was observed in 38.7% (n = 58) of surgical team members, 26.0% (n = 39) of scrub nurses, 20.7% (n = 31) of anaesthetic staff, and 14.7% (n = 22) of individuals in other roles. (χ² = 14.87, p < 0.001), with odds of non-compliance 2.31 times greater (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.52-3.52). Scrub nurses also demonstrated elevated non-compliance (χ² = 7.43, p = 0.006, OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.18-2.89), as did anaesthetic staff (χ² = 5.12, p = 0.024, OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.06-2.52) and individuals from other roles (χ² = 3.87, p = 0.049, OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.01-2.21).

conclusionsAlthough overall adherence to thyroid protection protocols was high, notable and statistically significant gaps were identified, particularly among trauma surgeons, scrub nurses, and anaesthetic staff. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational initiatives, routine equipment audits, and ongoing compliance monitoring to strengthen radiation safety practices across all clinical roles.

Indexed as

educationhospitalist residentmajor traumaorthopaedic spine surgeryquality improvementradiology auditthyroid cancerthyroid shield

Identifiers

PMID41552082
PMCPMC12805796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.