Knowledge Of Radiation Safety Research Articles

Knowledge and practices of radiation safety among healthcare workers in Ismailia city hospitals, Egypt

Best medical practices needs health care workers to have an awareness of the possible threats from radiological imaging practices to allow for effective risk/benefit assessments and assurance that ionizing radiation is used skillfully. The aim of this study was to describe the knowledge and practices of health care workers regarding ionizing radiation safety and exposure. A cross sectional study was conducted at four hospitals in Ismailia city, and all health care workers (292) with potential exposure to radiation at the different hospital departments/units were included in the study. A structured self-administered questionnaire was used. The mean scores of correct answers regarding knowledge and practice were as low as 20.6±5.7 and 3.6±4.1 respectively. There is a significant positive correlation between knowledge score and practice score (P

Radiation safety education as a component of orthopedic training.

Fluoroscopy poses an occupational hazard to orthopedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to examine resident and faculty understanding of radiation safety and to determine whether or not a radiation safety intervention would improve radiation safety knowledge. An anonymous survey was developed to assess attitudes and knowledge regarding radiation safety and exposure. It was distributed to faculty and residents at an academic orthopedic program before and after a radiation safety lecture. Pre- and post-lecture survey results were compared. 19 residents and 22 faculty members completed the pre-lecture survey while 11 residents and 17 faculty members completed the post-lecture survey. Pre-lecture survey scores were 48.3% for residents and 49.5% for faculty; post-lecture survey scores were 52.7% and 46.1% respectively. Differences between pre and post-survey scores were not significant. This study revealed low baseline radiation safety knowledge scores for both orthopedic residents and faculty. As evidence by our results, a single radiation safety information lecture did not significantly impact radiation knowledge. Radiation safety training should have a formal role in orthopedic surgery academic curricula.

Assessment of Radiation Safety Knowledge among House Staff Exposed to Fluoroscopic Radiation.

Urologists are increasingly exposed to fluoroscopy as minimally invasive techniques continue to proliferate. Fluoroscopy, or electromagnetic radiation, can cause cellular damage. Appropriate knowledge of safety precautions for fluoroscopy are necessary and ideally should be taught to physicians in training. A 20-question survey was created to assess radiation safety training, knowledge, behavior and attitudes. The survey was sent via REDCap™ to house staff routinely involved in fluoroscopic cases, including urology, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, radiology, general surgery, anesthesia, plastic surgery, cardiology, vascular surgery, and gastroenterology residents and fellows. Of 218 participants 61 (28%) responded during the 3-week study period. Overall 57% reported learning fluoroscopic radiation safety informally, with 28% receiving informal as well as formal education. Concerning directional x-ray travel and exposure only 20% answered correctly. In terms of conditions potentially related to radiation exposure 86% selected infertility, 87% cataracts, 87% leukemia and lymphoma, 59% central nervous system tumors and 71% birth defects. Twenty percent wear lead lined glasses, 23% dosimeters, 92% thyroid shields, 2% lead gloves, 92% lead apron, 48% lead shield and 1.6% nothing. Of the respondents 49% were unsure if the machine was set to continuous or pulse. Ninety-eight percent knew decreasing time and 100% knew wearing protective materials were ways to decrease exposure. However, concerning distance and exposure only 56% answered correctly. The majority of respondents believe radiation safety is important and would like more formal education. Fluoroscopic radiation safety knowledge is low among house staff routinely exposed to fluoroscopy. Further study and likely increased formal education are warranted.

Knowledge and practice of radiation safety among health professionals in Trinidad.

Objective:To determine the practices and knowledge of radiation safety measures among health care providers in tertiary institutions in Trinidad.Design & Method:A cross-sectional survey of health care professionals within two public hospitals was conducted using a questionnaire distributed to individuals working in Cardiology, General Surgery, Internal medicine, Orthopaedics, Radiology and Urology who require the use of ionizing radiation machines. The questionnaire comprised of 30 questions divided into five subcategories including demographic data, usage of the ionizing radiation machines, basic knowledge, and attitude towards personal protective equipment as well as radiation exposure measurement. Questionnaire results were tabulated and analysed using Microsoft Excel and Stata v11 with comparative statistical analysis being done using the one-way analysis of variance test.Results:A total of 118 health care professionals participated in this study. The majority (85/118 (72%)) of individuals revealed that they had no formal training regarding safe practices when working with ionizing radiation despite the daily use of the fluoroscopy machines by at least 25% of participants. Individuals who had formal training in the use of ionizing radiation were found to score significantly higher than those without training (p < 0.0001). Participants’ knowledge regarding the proper positioning of the C-arm image intensifier to reduce radiation exposure was low with 46% of individuals providing a correct response.Conclusions:The level of knowledge among the individuals who participate in the operation of ionizing radiation equipment throughout the country is low. The benefit of training in the use of the C-arm image intensifier is highlighted by the revelation that the individuals who had formal training in the use of these machines performed better than those individuals without training. Annual recertification courses should be implemented such that individuals are kept abreast with current changes and reminded of commonly neglected safety practices.

Radiological protection and safety: Putting patients first

The concept of radiation safety has always been a hot topic, especially with the late reports pointing to increased hazards with chronic radiation exposure for patients and medical personnel alike. Appropriate use of equipment include collimation, optimizing beam-on time, minimizing distances between image intensifier and patient, ensuring sufficient distance between patient and x-ray tube, and optimizing exposure rates for image quality and dose. Present day diagnostic radiology relies on three radiation protection principles - Justification of practice safety, optimization of radiation exposure ALARA, and dose limitation. General practitioners need a working knowledge of radiation safety as to adequately inform their patients of the risks-benefit ratio of diagnostic imaging procedures

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness.

Survey of veterinary specialists regarding their knowledge of radiation safety and the availability of radiation safety training.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the knowledge of various veterinary specialists regarding various radiation safety matters and determine the availability of radiation safety training. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE 164 radiology, 81 internal medicine, and 108 emergency and critical care (ECC) specialists. PROCEDURES An online survey was developed regarding knowledge of and training in radiation safety, and invitations were sent via email through the email lists of the veterinary internal medicine, ECC, and radiology specialty colleges. Responses were summarized, and comparisons were made between radiologists and internal medicine and ECC clinicians. RESULTS 65.5% (38 /58) of respondents from academic institutions and 30.0% (33/110) of respondents from private practices indicated that radiation safety training was mandatory at their institution for personnel who work with ionizing radiation-emitting equipment, and 80.2% (85/106) and 56.6% (77/136), respectively, had received some radiation safety training. Low proportions of radiologists and internal medicine and ECC clinicians correctly identified the effective dose of ionizing radiation associated with 3-phase esophagography and 3-phase abdominal CT. Many radiologists (92/153 [60.1%]) and nonradiologists (92/179 [51.4%]) believed that the effective doses used in veterinary practice pose no increased risk of fatal cancer to their patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Radiation safety training, although more common in academia, was not universally available and may not meet radiography equipment license requirements for some institutions. Most radiologists, internal medicine clinicians, and ECC clinicians had a poor understanding of the amount of ionizing radiation associated with medical imaging procedures and the potential hazards to their patients.

MP02-15 ASSESSMENT OF RADIATION SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AMONG HOUSE STAFF REVEALS APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS BUT DEFICIENT KNOWLEDGE

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety I1 Apr 2018MP02-15 ASSESSMENT OF RADIATION SAFETY KNOWLEDGE AMONG HOUSE STAFF REVEALS APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS BUT DEFICIENT KNOWLEDGE Andrew Harris, Marilyn Hopkins, John Loomis, and Jason Bylund Andrew HarrisAndrew Harris More articles by this author , Marilyn HopkinsMarilyn Hopkins More articles by this author , John LoomisJohn Loomis More articles by this author , and Jason BylundJason Bylund More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.141AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urologists, as well as other specialties, are increasingly exposed to fluoroscopy as minimally invasive techniques continue to become more widespread. Fluoroscopy, or electromagnetic radiation, can be harmful due to cellular damage. Appropriate knowledge of and safety precautions concerning fluoroscopy are necessary and ideally should be taught in training. METHODS A 20 question survey was constructed to assess radiation safety training, attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. The survey was sent via REDCap to house staff routinely involved fluoroscopic cases, which included urology, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, radiology, general surgery, anesthesia, plastic surgery, cardiology, vascular surgery, and gastroenterology. RESULTS 61 of 218 (28%) participants responded during the 2 week study period. 57% have received fluoroscopic radiation safety education informally, with 28% receiving both informal and formal education. When asked about directional X-travel and exposure, only 20% answered correctly with 25% being unsure, 18% stating no difference, and 38% choosing flow originating below the patient exposes the operator to more radiation. When asked about conditions potentially related to radiation exposure, 86% believe infertility is potentially related to exposure, 87% cataracts, 87% leukemia and lymphoma, 59% central nervous system tumors, 71% birth defects, and 3% diabetes. When asked about protection, 20% wear lead lined glasses, 23% dosimeters, 92% thyroid shields, 2% lead gloves, 92% lead apron, 48% lead shield, and 1.6% nothing. When asked about fluoroscopy machine settings, 12% knew the machine used was set to continuous, 39% pulse, and 49% were unsure. 64% were aware of the directional travel concerning the machine routinely used. When asked about safety techniques, 98% knew decreasing time and 100% knew wearing protective materials were ways to decrease exposure. When asked about distance and exposure, only 56% answered correctly. The majority of respondents believe radiation safety is important (87%) and would like more formal education (52.5%). Concerning items, see Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS Fluoroscopic radiation safety knowledge is low among house staff routinely using fluoroscopy. Further study and likely increased formal education is warranted. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e17-e18 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Harris More articles by this author Marilyn Hopkins More articles by this author John Loomis More articles by this author Jason Bylund More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Physician Knowledge of Radiation Exposure and Risk in Medical Imaging

PurposeMedical imaging is an increasingly important source of radiation exposure for the general population, and there are risks associated with such exposure; however, recent studies have demonstrated poor understanding of medical radiation among various groups of health care providers. This study had two aims: (1) analyze physicians’ knowledge of radiation exposure and risk in diagnostic imaging across multiple specialties and levels of training, and (2) assess the effectiveness of a brief educational presentation on improving physicians’ knowledge. MethodsFrom 2014 to 2016, 232 health care providers from multiple departments participated in an educational presentation and pre- and postpresentation tests evaluating knowledge of radiation exposure and risk at a large academic institution. ResultsKnowledge of radiation exposure and risk was relatively low on the prepresentation test, including particularly poor understanding of different imaging modalities, with 26% of participants unable to correctly identify which modalities expose patients to ionizing radiation. Test scores significantly increased after the educational presentation. Radiologists had higher prepresentation test scores than other specialties, and therefore less opportunity for improvement, but also demonstrated improvement in radiation safety knowledge after education. Aside from radiology, there was no significant difference in initial knowledge of radiation exposure and risk among the other specialties. ConclusionsProviders’ knowledge of radiation exposure and risk was low at baseline but significantly increased after a brief educational presentation. Efforts to educate ordering providers about radiation exposure and risk are needed to ensure that providers are appropriately weighing the risks and benefits of medical imaging and to ensure high-quality, patient-centered care.

Training Standards in Neuroendovascular Surgery: Program Accreditation and Practitioner Certification.

Neuroendovascular surgery is a medical subspecialty that uses minimally invasive catheter-based technology and radiological imaging to diagnose and treat diseases of the central nervous system, head, neck, spine, and their vasculature. To perform these procedures, the practitioner needs an extensive knowledge of the anatomy of the nervous system, vasculature, and pathological conditions that affect their physiology. A working knowledge of radiation biology and safety is essential. Similarly, a sufficient volume of clinical and interventional experience, first as a trainee and then as a practitioner, is required so that these treatments can be delivered safely and effectively. This document has been prepared under the aegis of the Society of Neurological Surgeons and its Committee for Advanced Subspecialty Training in conjunction with the Joint Section of Cerebrovascular Surgery for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. The material herein outlines the requirements for institutional accreditation of training programs in neuroendovascular surgery, as well as those needed to obtain individual subspecialty certification, as agreed on by Committee for Advanced Subspecialty Training, the Society of Neurological Surgeons, and the aforementioned Societies. This document also clarifies the pathway to certification through an advanced practice track mechanism for those current practitioners of this subspecialty who trained before Committee for Advanced Subspecialty Training standards were formulated. Representing neuroendovascular surgery physicians from neurosurgery, neuroradiology, and neurology, the above mentioned societies seek to standardize neuroendovascular surgery training to ensure the highest quality delivery of this subspecialty within the United States.

Need for radiation safety education for interventional cardiology staff, especially nurses.

Cardiac interventional radiology (IR) can cause radiation injury to the staff who administer it as well as to patients. Although education in the basic principles of radiation is required for nurses, their level of radiation safety knowledge is not known. The present study used a questionnaire protocol to assess the level of radiation safety knowledge among hospital nurses. A questionnaire to assess the level of training and current understanding of radiation safety was administered to 305 nurses in 2008 and again to 359 nurses in 2010. Our study indicates that nurses had insufficient knowledge about radiation safety, and that a high percentage of nurses were concerned about the health hazards of radiation. Moreover, more than 80% of the nurses expressed an interest in attending periodic radiation safety seminars. Annual radiation protection training for hospital staff (including nurses) is important. Our results suggest that nurses do not have sufficient knowledge of radiation safety and should receive appropriate radiation safety training. Many had a minimal understanding of radiation and thus had significant concerns about the safety of working with radiation. Periodic radiation safety education/training for nurses is essential.

The radiation safety education and the pain physicians' efforts to reduce radiation exposure.

BackgroundC-arm fluoroscopy equipment is important for interventional pain management and can cause radiation injury to physicians and patients. We compared radiation safety education and efforts to reduce the radiation exposure of pain specialists.MethodsA survey of 49 pain specialists was conducted anonymously in 2016. The questionnaire had 16 questions. That questionnaire was about radiation safety knowledge and efforts to reduce exposure. We investigated the correlation between radiation safety education and efforts of radiation protection. We compared the results from 2016 and a published survey from 2011.ResultsAccording to the 2016 survey, all respondents used C-arm fluoroscopy in pain interventions. Nineteen respondents (39%) had received radiation safety education. Physicians had insufficient knowledge about radiation safety. When the radiation safety education group and the non-education group are compared, there was no significant difference in efforts to reduce radiation exposure and radiation safety knowledge. When the 2011 and 2016 surveys were compared, the use of low dose mode (P = 0.000) and pulsed mode had increased significantly (P = 0.001). The number checking for damage to radiation protective garments (P = 0.000) and use of the dosimeter had also increased significantly (P = 0.009). But there was no significant difference in other efforts to reduce radiation exposure.ConclusionsPain physicians seem to lack knowledge of radiation safety and the number of physicians receiving radiation safety education is low. According to this study, education does not lead to practice. Therefore, pain physicians should receive regular radiation safety education and the education should be mandatory.

A Multicenter Survey of Endovascular Theatre Equipment and Radiation Exposure in France during Iliac Procedures

The aim of this study is to evaluate radiation exposure, endovascular theatre equipment, and practices in France during iliac angioplasty. A prospective observational study was performed among vascular surgeons who attended a half day of radiation safety training in 2012 and 2015 and had to collect data on 3 patients undergoing iliac procedure. In 2012, 330 surgeons performed 899 procedures, compared with 114 surgeons and 338 procedures in 2015. Due to exclusions, 653 and 306 procedures were analyzed in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Endovascular environment, practices, anatomical characteristics, and radiation parameters were collected, analyzed, and compared generally and between the 2 groups. Endovascular theatre equipment significantly improved over the 3years: mobile flat-panel detector (1.1% vs. 5.9%), hybrid rooms (1.5% vs. 14.7%), and dedicated radiology tables (37.2% vs. 51.2%). Lesion's classification (Trans-Atlantic Society Consensus) was similar between groups but procedure complexity increased overtime: more than one stent implanted (32.3% vs. 41%, P<0.01), cross over (11.5% vs. 16%, P<0.05), and kissing procedures (19.3% vs. 24.2%, P=0.05). The mean dose area product (DAP) was 14.2±18.9Gy cm2 in 2012 and 21.5±37.6Gy cm2 in 2015 (P<0.01), and the mean fluoroscopy time was 4.8±5.5min and 5.2±5.9min, respectively (nonsignificant). Overall, hybrid rooms, body mass index over 25kg/m2, more than one stent implanted, and crossover technique were associated with a significantly higher DAP. Over 3years, a large population of vascular surgeons improved radiation safety knowledge, operative environment, and technical complexity. However, these changes have led to an increased DAP in 2015, which underline the outmost importance of low dose settings and application of ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principles in every day practice.

A study on radiation safety education, knowledge, and practice in using portable intraoral X-ray equipment of dental hygienist’s

A study on radiation safety education, knowledge, and practice in using portable intraoral X-ray equipment of dental hygienist’s

Radiation Safety among Workers in Health Services.

The purpose of this study was to survey health service workers regarding their radiation safety knowledge and practice. Participants were health service workers (n = 721) who received an anonymous online survey by email to test their radiation safety knowledge. A knowledge test of 15 questions was completed by 412 respondents. The overall average percent correct was 77.9%. Health physicists/medical physicists had the highest average percent score (93.5%), while physician assistants scored the lowest (60.0%). Of all the respondents, only 64.0% reported they participated in periodic radiation safety training at their place of employment. The most common topic selected where participants wanted additional training was in biological effects of radiation (41.0%). In conclusion, radiation safety training and education needs to be developed and planned effectively. Areas or specialties with poor radiation safety knowledge need to be addressed with corresponding safety measures.

Surgical Staff Radiation Protection During Fluoroscopy-Guided Urologic Interventions.

Over the past 20 years, the use of fluoroscopy to guide urologic surgical interventions has been constantly growing. Thus, in their daily practice, urologists and other operating room (OR) staff are exposed to X-radiation increasingly frequently. This raises questions as to the risks they encounter and the actions needed to reduce them. Evaluate X-ray dose exposure in the members of the surgical team and determine urologist radioprotection knowledge and practices. A prospective bicenter study was conducted within AFUF (French urology resident association) and in association with The French Nuclear Safety Authority/The Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (ASN/IRSN). Radiation exposure was measured on 12 operators using dosimeters (seven per operator), in staff-occupied locations in the OR using ionization chambers, and on anthropomorphic phantoms. A survey was used to gather information on radiation knowledge and safety practices of the AFUF members. Annual whole-body radiation doses were low (0.1-0.8 millisieverts [mSv], mostly at around 0.3 mSv), and equivalent doses were low for the fingers (0.7-15 mSv, mostly at around 2.5 mSv), and low for the lens of the eye (0.3-2.3 mSv, mostly at around 0.7 mSv). In percutaneous nephrolithotomy, extremity doses were lower when the patient was placed in dorsal decubitus compared with ventral decubitus. Pulsed fluoroscopy reduced radiation dose exposure by a factor of 3 compared with continuous fluoroscopy with no image quality loss. Radiation safety practices were poor: only 15% of urologists wore dosimeters and only 5% had been trained in the handling of X-ray generators. In the present study, radiation exposure for urologists was low, but so was knowledge of radiation safety and optimization practices. This absence of training for radiation safety and reduction, teamed with novel techniques involving long fluoroscopy-guided interventions, could result in unnecessarily high exposure for patients and OR personnel.

Need for radiation safety education for interventional cardiology staff, especially nurses

Objective Cardiac interventional radiology (IR) can cause radiation injury to the staff who administer it as well as to patients. Although education in the basic principles of radiation is required for nurses, their level of radiation safety knowledge is not known. The present study used a questionnaire protocol to assess the level of radiation safety knowledge among hospital nurses.Methods and results A questionnaire to assess the level of training and current understanding of radiation safety was administered to 305 nurses in 2008 and again to 359 nurses in 2010. Our study indicates that nurses had insufficient knowledge about radiation safety, and that a high percentage of nurses were concerned about the health hazards of radiation. Moreover, more than 80% of the nurses expressed an interest in attending periodic radiation safety seminars. Annual radiation protection training for hospital staff (including nurses) is important.Conclusions Our results suggest that nurses do not have sufficient knowledge of radiation safety and should receive appropriate radiation safety training. Many had a minimal understanding of radiation and thus had significant concerns about the safety of working with radiation. Periodic radiation safety education/training for nurses is essential.

Radiation exposure to orthopaedic registrars in the Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Complex

INTRODUCTION: Modern orthopaedic surgery increasingly involves the use of fluoroscopic imaging in theatre. This has led to an increase in radiation exposure to the orthopaedic surgeon and other theatre staff. There is very little research as to which orthopaedic subspecialty may lead to higher exposures. This study aims to demonstrate whether radiation exposure levels in orthopaedic registrars in the Pietermaritzburg Complex are within safety limits and also to determine which subspecialty rotations lead to increased exposure levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective quantitative observational study analysed the dosimeter readings of 20 registrars over a one-year period. Dosimeter readings were also analysed per subspecialty rotation, namely orthopaedic trauma, spinal surgery, arthroplasty, ortho-paediatrics, upper limb surgery, and tumour sepsis and reconstruction. RESULTS: No registrar was found to have a dosimeter reading exceeding the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines. Rotations in which registrars received measureable readings were orthopaedic trauma, upper limb surgery, spinal surgery and arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Trauma rotations appeared to produce to highest radiation exposure readings, although these were still within international safety limits. Knowledge of radiation safety, staff education and safety measures to limit any unnecessary exposure should be employed.

RADIATION RISK ESTIMATION FROM OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL IMAGING EXPOSURE IN MALAYSIA

Ionizing radiation has been increasingly applied in medicine and firmly established as an essential tool for diagnosis. There is high possibility for medical radiation workers to receive doses that are considerably higher than recorded by their dosimeters due to lack of knowledge about ionizing radiation, lack of training in radiation protection, and attitude of the workers themselves toward radiation protection. The purpose of this study is to estimate the radiation risk due to occupational exposure to ionizing radiation among medical diagnostic workers at hospitals in Malaysia. Also the objective is to determine the knowledge of occupational radiation exposure and radiation safety among the workers. The assessment was made based on the collective doses collected from film badge of the workers. The results of risk assessment show the mean annual collective effective dose based on type of X-ray procedure in this study was 5.445mSv, which is much lower compared to the whole body exposure dose limit, set by the ICRP Publication 60. A survey on knowledge of occupational radiation exposure and radiation safety was conducted using questionnaire and it was found that vast majority of respondents were aware of radiation safety with 91.3% answered the specific questions regarding radiation protection at workplace correctly. Unfortunately only 30.4% of the respondents fully understand the hazard they are exposed to. The study reveals that there is a critical need to educate not only medical radiation workers but also medical doctors and nurses to decrease unnecessary occupational exposure to radiation hazard.

Orthopaedic surgeons' use and knowledge of ionizing radiation during surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement.

To better understand how radiograph imaging is currently used throughout perioperative care for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and to define surgeon knowledge and perspective on radiation safety when treating FAI. An online questionnaire was designed to be completed by hip arthroscopists on the imaging modalities and projections they use during evaluation and treatment of FAI and the associated radiation exposures and safety. A sample of practicing attending orthopaedic surgeons was surveyed via an anonymous survey link emailed to corresponding authors on publications related to FAI. The anonymous survey link was also provided to orthopaedic surgeons at the 2014 Vail Hip Symposium. Ninety-one surgeons completed the survey. Of these participants, 72 surgeons (79.1%) indicated they use pre-operative radiographs and intra-operative spot fluoroscopic images during FAI treatment. Thirty-three surgeons (36.3%) use pre-operative computed tomography (CT). Twenty-three surgeons (25.3%) use real-time moving fluoroscopy. A majority of surgeons incorrectly answered multiple-choice questions about which C-arm positions and settings result in the lowest doses of radiation to the surgeon or patient. Eighty-three surgeons (91.2%) indicated they believe most orthopaedic surgeons need to be more informed about radiation safety. This study gives a quantitative representation of the imaging modalities and projections utilized during perioperative treatment for FAI. This study also identified a lack of knowledge of radiation safety among orthopaedic surgeons treating patients with FAI and demonstrates the need for greater education. IV.