4.3 Article

Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: Prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice

Journal

CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages 407-411

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.20201

Keywords

radiation; spine complications; lead aprons

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Invasive cardiologists generally consider radiation to be the chief occupational hazard. Heavy leaded aprons worn to reduce this risk may be associated with orthopedic complications. This study was designed to characterize the prevalence of these occupational health problems. The Interventional Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) sent to its Internet-registered members a Web-based survey. Inquiries included age, years of invasive practice, and diagnostic/interventional cases/ year. Questions (yes/no) focused on orthopedic (spine, hips, knees, and ankles) and radiation-associated problems (cataracts and cancers). The survey was sent to over 1,600 members with 424 responses. Responders were on average busy and experienced, performing catheterization > 10 years in 62% of cases and > 20 years in 24% others. Average annual diagnostic-only case load was > 200/year in 72%, > 300/year in 43%, and > 500/year in 18% of responders. Reported annual interventional caseload was > 100/year in 83%, > 200/year in 37%, and > 300/year in 15% of operators. Orthopedic problems included spine problems in 42% of responders (of these, 70% were lumbosacral and 30% cervical). Hip, knee, or ankle problems were noted in 28% of operators. Spine problems were related to the annual procedural caseload and the number of years in practice. Over one-third reported spine problems had caused them to miss work. The results of the radiation queries were inconclusive. These results document that interventional cardiologists commonly suffer orthopedic disease, frequently leading to lost work days. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available