In radiology, protection of the gonads is a universal exercise embraced by both state and intercontinental bodies (Warlow, walker-birch, and Cosson 2014; Sikand, Stinchcombe and Livesley, 2009). Importantly, shielding of the gonads works best under three conditions. The first one suggests that gonads should be positioned in the primary X-ray field or within a close interval approximately 5cm away (Frantzen et al., 2012). Secondly, any medical objective of the gonad assessment should not be liable for any compromise that may result thereof, and lastly, the patient must have a reasonable degree of fertility (Frantzen et al., 2012).
Most of the patients suffering from developmental dysplasia of the hip usually go through a series of x-ray examination. Such examinations lead to full exposure of the gonads to radiation unless they are shielded. Notably, different types of gonad shielding exist even if they do not offer satisfactory protection due to size and replacement problems in addition to the frequent omission in female patients (Tsai et al., 2014). One obvious advantage of the gonad shielding is that it is capable of reducing the prescribed amount to the testes by roughly 95% and to the ovaries by about 50% (Tsai et al., 2014). The difference in the fortification levels is attributable to the fact that, in females, there is a wide spread position of the ovaries. Miller (1953) in his analysis about the dangers emanating from the use of X-ray in Pediatrics noted a difference in the dose entrance levels. He found out that, the dose entrance level for a radiograph patient was 12mGy and that of a fluoroscopy to be in the range of 100-200mGy. However, there are attempts to reduce patient dose entrance levels.
Nevertheless, in the day-to-day experience with the gonad shield protection, it is clear that it is not wholly advantageous as it has most disadvantages than its benefits. Mostly, it appears hard to consign the X-ray guard in the right position. In spite of all the odds, there are tremendous improvements in the X-ray imaging expertise and the emission biology. Consequentially, these have in lower doses and reduced risks for heritable diseases (Frantzen et al., 2012). The most worrying question in today’s X-ray is whether a reduction in radiation risk through the application of gonad protection is still worthwhile with regard to the many disadvantages revolving around it leading to a situation of disequilibrium between manageable radiation risk lessening and related loss of diagnostic information (Martin, Farquhar, Stockdale and MacDonald, 1994).
Furthermore, despite its limitations, gonad shielding played a very critical role when doses were very high. Currently, the various advantages seem to be outweighed by the drawbacks. The indication of this perspective is that the emphasis on the application of the gonad shield has given rise to a particular kind of assurance that key risks have to be countered (Abram, Wilkinson and Hodson, 1958). Radiographers should, therefore, be familiar with the perils that are linked with probable loss of problem-solving information that outweighs the little contribution of the gonad shield (Ardran and Kemp, 2014). Individuals should, therefore, be taught about the jeopardy of exposures that are universally deemed as nontoxic.
Radiological protection for the staff goes hand in hand with patient protection since the two correlates in various aspects. As such, each one of them has a role to play in ensuring low remittance level of radiological emissions (Fauber, 2016). The implication is that, if the staffs are fully equipped with knowledge of radiological protection, they can be capable of lowering their level of risk through radiation that usually scatters from the patients (Sikand, Stinchcombe and Livesley, 2003). Consequentially, there will be less radiation that both the staff and patients receive if all are exposed to less scattered radiation. Protective equipment offers a significant decrease in occupational doses (Granata, Santos and Samara, 2015). Tools such as gloves could elongate the process in some cases and compromise with safety measures, and security of the patient since the tactile feeling of the catheter is reduced (Sulieman, 2015).
In essence, having looked into the various disadvantages of the gonad shield, one may lay down arguments in its opposition. Arguably, there is a marginal risk reduction for both boys and girls. As such, while effective education is enhanced and resources provided, optimization of the gonad shield will have a higher rate of risk reduction.
Bibliography
ABRAM, E., WILKINSON, D.M. and HODSON, C.J., 1958. Gonadal protection from X radiation for the female. The British journal of radiology [Online]. 31(366), pp.335-336. [Viewed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from:
http://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/0007-1285-31-366-335
ARDRAN, G.M. and KEMP, F.H., 2014. Protection of the male gonads in diagnostic procedures. The British Journal of Radiology [Online]. 30(353), pp.280-280. [Viewed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from: http://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/0007-1285-30-353-280
FAUBER, T.L., 2016. Gonadal Shielding in Radiography: A Best Practice? Radiologictechnology [Online]. 88(2), pp. 127-134. [Viewed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from:
http://www.radiologictechnology.org/content/88/2/127.short
FRANTZEN, M.J., ROBBEN, S., POSTMA, A.A., ZOETELIEF, J., WILDBERGER, J.E. and KEMERINK, G.J., 2012. Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: disadvantages prevail over benefit. Insightsintoimaging [Online]. 3(1), pp. 23-32. [Viewed 23 Feb 2017]. Available from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13244-011-0130-3
GRANATA, C., SANTOS, J. and SAMARA, E., 2015. Ask EuroSafe Imaging Tips and TricksPaediatricImaging Working Group [Online]. [Viewed 23 Feb 2017]. Available from:
http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Paediatric-imaging-WG_TipsTricks2.pdf
MARTIN, C.J., FARQUHAR, B., STOCKDALE, E. and MACDONALD, S., 1994. A study of the relationship between patient dose and size in paediatric radiology. The British Journal of Radiology [Online]. 67(801), pp. 864-871. [Viewed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from:
http://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/0007-1285-67-801-864
SIKAND, M., STINCHCOMBE, S. and LIVESLEY, P.J., 2003. Study on the use of gonadal protection shields during paediatric pelvic X-rays. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England [Online]. 85(6), pp. 422-427. [Accessed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964410/
SULIEMAN, A., 2015. Current status of radiation dose levels in conventional pediatric radiography: A review study. Open Journal of Radiology [Online]. 5(02), pp. 104. [Accessed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=57327
TSAI, Y.S., LIU, Y.S., CHUANG, M.T., WANG, C.K., LAI, C.S., TSAI, H.M., LIN, C.J. and LU, C.H., 2014. Shielding during x-ray examination of pediatric female patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. Journal of Radiological Protection [Online]. 34(4), pp. 801. [Viewed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/34/4/801/meta
WARLOW, T., WALKER-BIRCH, P. and COSSON, P., 2014. Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: Effectiveness and practice. Radiography [Online]. 20(3), pp.178-182. [Viewed Feb 23, 2017]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817414000030
