Literature DB >> 30890565

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

Raquel Velazquez-Kronen1,2, David Borrego1, Ethel S Gilbert1, Donald L Miller3, Kirsten B Moysich4, Jo L Freudenheim2, Jean Wactawski-Wende2, Elizabeth K Cahoon1, Mark P Little1, Amy E Millen2, Stephen Balter5, Bruce H Alexander6, Steven L Simon1, Martha S Linet1, Cari M Kitahara1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess radiation exposure-related work history and risk of cataract and cataract surgery among radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP).
METHODS: This retrospective study included 35 751 radiologic technologists who reported being cataract-free at baseline (1994-1998) and completed a follow-up questionnaire (2013-2014). Frequencies of assisting with 21 types of FGIP and use of radiation protection equipment during five time periods (before 1970, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009) were derived from an additional self-administered questionnaire in 2013-2014. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for self-reported cataract diagnosis and cataract surgery were estimated according to FGIP work history.
RESULTS: During follow-up, 9372 technologists reported incident physician-diagnosed cataract; 4278 of incident cases reported undergoing cataract surgery. Technologists who ever assisted with FGIP had increased risk for cataract compared with those who never assisted with FGIP (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.25). Risk increased with increasing cumulative number of FGIP; the RR for technologists who assisted with >5000 FGIP compared with those who never assisted was 1.38 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.53; p trend <0.001). These associations were more pronounced for FGIP when technologists were located ≤3 feet (≤0.9 m) from the patient compared with >3 feet (>0.9 m) (RRs for >5000 at ≤3 feet vs never FGIP were 1.48, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.74 and 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, respectively; pdifference=0.04). Similar risks, although not statistically significant, were observed for cataract surgery.
CONCLUSION: Technologists who reported assisting with FGIP, particularly high-volume FGIP within 3 feet of the patient, had increased risk of incident cataract. Additional investigation should evaluate estimated dose response and medically validated cataract type. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cataract; cataract surgery; fluoroscopy; occupational exposure; retrospective exposure assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30890565      PMCID: PMC6686674          DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2018-105360

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Occup Environ Med        ISSN: 1351-0711            Impact factor:   4.402


  28 in total

1.  A clinical study of radiation cataracts and the relationship to dose.

Authors:  G R MERRIAM; E F FOCHT
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1957-05

2.  Radiation-associated lens changes in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Results from the IC-CATARACT (CATaracts Attributed to RAdiation in the CaTh lab) study.

Authors:  Aris Karatasakis; Harilaos S Brilakis; Barbara A Danek; Judit Karacsonyi; Jose Roberto Martinez-Parachini; Phuong-Khanh J Nguyen-Trong; Aya J Alame; Michele K Roesle; Bavana V Rangan; Kenneth Rosenfield; Roxana Mehran; Ehtisham Mahmud; Charles E Chambers; Subhash Banerjee; Emmanouil S Brilakis
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  Interventional radiology: a half century of innovation.

Authors:  Richard A Baum; Stanley Baum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs--threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context.

Authors:  F A Stewart; A V Akleyev; M Hauer-Jensen; J H Hendry; N J Kleiman; T J Macvittie; B M Aleman; A B Edgar; K Mabuchi; C R Muirhead; R E Shore; W H Wallace
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2012-02

Review 5.  Tools to fight the cataract epidemic: A review of experimental animal models that mimic age related nuclear cataract.

Authors:  Julie C Lim; Ankita Umapathy; Paul J Donaldson
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.467

Review 6.  Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010.

Authors:  Donatella Pascolini; Silvio Paolo Mariotti
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 4.638

7.  Risk factors associated with incident cataracts and cataract surgery in the Age-related Eye Disease Study (AREDS): AREDS report number 32.

Authors:  Jessica R Chang; Euna Koo; Elvira Agrón; Joelle Hallak; Traci Clemons; Dimitri Azar; Robert D Sperduto; Frederick L Ferris; Emily Y Chew
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Occupational radiation exposure and risk of cataract incidence in a cohort of US radiologic technologists.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Cari M Kitahara; Elizabeth K Cahoon; Marie-Odile Bernier; Raquel Velazquez-Kronen; Michele M Doody; David Borrego; Jeremy S Miller; Bruce H Alexander; Steven L Simon; Dale L Preston; Nobuyuki Hamada; Martha S Linet; Craig Meyer
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Cancer incidence in the US radiologic technologists health study, 1983-1998.

Authors:  Alice J Sigurdson; Michele Morin Doody; R Sowmya Rao; D Michal Freedman; Bruce H Alexander; Michael Hauptmann; Aparna K Mohan; Shinji Yoshinaga; Deirdre A Hill; Robert Tarone; Kiyohiko Mabuchi; Elaine Ron; Martha S Linet
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers: implications regarding permissible eye exposures.

Authors:  B V Worgul; Y I Kundiyev; N M Sergiyenko; V V Chumak; P M Vitte; C Medvedovsky; E V Bakhanova; A K Junk; O Y Kyrychenko; N V Musijachenko; S A Shylo; O P Vitte; S Xu; X Xue; R E Shore
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.841

View more
  6 in total

1.  Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.

Authors:  David Borrego; Cari M Kitahara; Stephen Balter; Craig Yoder
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Eye protection in interventional procedures.

Authors:  Beth A Schueler; Kenneth A Fetterly
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.629

3.  The Need for a Broad-based Introduction to Radiation Science within U.S. Medical Schools' Educational Curriculum.

Authors:  Martha S Linet; Pamela B Davis; James A Brink
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 29.146

4.  A study to assess the knowledge and practice of medical professionals on radiation protection in interventional radiology.

Authors:  Mohsen Shafiee; Razieh Rashidfar; Jamil Abdolmohammadi; Sajad Borzoueisileh; Zaker Salehi; Kheibar Dashtian
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2020-03-30

5.  Catheter strategy to ease the procedure and reduce radiation exposure when requiring neck access.

Authors:  Rouven Kubicki; Johanna Hummel; René Höhn; Kevin Müller; Brigitte Stiller; Jochen Grohmann
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2020-06

6.  Risk of cataract in health care workers exposed to ionizing radiation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elena Della Vecchia; Alberto Modenese; Tom Loney; Martina Muscatello; Marilia Silva Paulo; Giorgia Rossi; Fabriziomaria Gobba
Journal:  Med Lav       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 1.275

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.