In plain language
In a UK trauma centre audit of 712 staff observations across 91 fluoroscopy-guided operations, 78% wore both a lead gown and thyroid shield; surgical team members, scrub nurses and anaesthetic staff most often lacked thyroid shields.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Cross-sectional survey
- Who was studied
- Orthopedic surgeons, Other surgeons, Nurses, Anesthesia staff, Radiologic technologists, Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 712 staff observations
- Where
- United Kingdom
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
Most observed theatre staff were fully compliant with lead gown and thyroid protection, but about one in five lacked a thyroid shield.
Key figures: 555 (78.0%) compliant; 157 (22.0%) non-compliant
Surgical team members had the highest non-compliance with thyroid protection.
Key figures: 38.7% (n = 58); χ² = 14.87, p < 0.001, odds ratio (OR) = 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52-3.52
Scrub nurses and anaesthetic staff also showed elevated non-compliance.
Key figures: Scrub nurses OR = 1.74 (1.18-2.89); anaesthetic staff OR = 1.58 (1.06-2.52)
Few staff wore neither a gown nor a thyroid shield.
Key figures: 7 (1.0%)
Average thyroid dose during femoral intramedullary nailing was below occupational limits.
Key figures: 142 μSv (0.142 mSv)
Limits to keep in mind
Single-centre observational audit with no link between compliance and measured dose; statistical reporting is internally inconsistent (e.g., the operation-type association is reported as both non-significant and significant).
Related research summaries
- Radiation in the Orthopedic Operating Room: What We Know, What We Do, and What Needs Attention (2025, Narrative review)
- Radiation exposure of eyes, thyroid gland and hands in orthopaedic staff: a systematic review (2012, Systematic review)
- AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (Guideline or consensus statement)
- Literacy in the Scope of Radiation Protection for Healthcare Professionals Exposed to Ionizing Radiation: A Systematic Review (2024, Systematic review)
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the full text of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.