Cargando…

Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers

OBJECTIVES: We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Glans, Anton, Wilén, Jonna, Lindgren, Lenita, Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M., Hansson, Boel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35674823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y
_version_ 1784831984817668096
author Glans, Anton
Wilén, Jonna
Lindgren, Lenita
Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M.
Hansson, Boel
author_facet Glans, Anton
Wilén, Jonna
Lindgren, Lenita
Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M.
Hansson, Boel
author_sort Glans, Anton
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test associations between sex, age, stress, SMF strength, working hours, and symptom prevalence. Data regarding hearing function, work-environmental noise, and strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms were also analysed. RESULTS: In total, 529 out of 546 respondents from 86 hospitals were eligible for participation. A ≥ 20 working hours/week/modality cut-off rendered 342 participants grouped into CT (n = 75), MR (n = 121), or mixed personnel (n = 146). No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between groups. Working at ≥ 3T increased SMF-associated symptoms as compared with working at ≤ 1.5T (OR: 2.03, CI(95): 1.05–3.93). Stress was a significant confounder. Work-related noise was rated as more troublesome by CT than MR personnel (p < 0.01). MR personnel tended to use more strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. However, working at 3T increased the risk of SMF symptoms, and stress increased adverse health effects. Noise nuisance was considered more problematic by CT than MR personnel. KEY POINTS: • No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. • Working at ≥ 3 T doubled the odds of experiencing SMF symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, and/or illusion of movement) as compared to working exclusively at ≤ 1.5 T. • Work-related acoustic noise was less well mitigated and was rated as more troublesome by CT personnel than by MR personnel.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9668766
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96687662022-11-18 Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers Glans, Anton Wilén, Jonna Lindgren, Lenita Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M. Hansson, Boel Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance OBJECTIVES: We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test associations between sex, age, stress, SMF strength, working hours, and symptom prevalence. Data regarding hearing function, work-environmental noise, and strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms were also analysed. RESULTS: In total, 529 out of 546 respondents from 86 hospitals were eligible for participation. A ≥ 20 working hours/week/modality cut-off rendered 342 participants grouped into CT (n = 75), MR (n = 121), or mixed personnel (n = 146). No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between groups. Working at ≥ 3T increased SMF-associated symptoms as compared with working at ≤ 1.5T (OR: 2.03, CI(95): 1.05–3.93). Stress was a significant confounder. Work-related noise was rated as more troublesome by CT than MR personnel (p < 0.01). MR personnel tended to use more strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. However, working at 3T increased the risk of SMF symptoms, and stress increased adverse health effects. Noise nuisance was considered more problematic by CT than MR personnel. KEY POINTS: • No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. • Working at ≥ 3 T doubled the odds of experiencing SMF symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, and/or illusion of movement) as compared to working exclusively at ≤ 1.5 T. • Work-related acoustic noise was less well mitigated and was rated as more troublesome by CT personnel than by MR personnel. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-06-08 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9668766/ /pubmed/35674823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Magnetic Resonance
Glans, Anton
Wilén, Jonna
Lindgren, Lenita
Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M.
Hansson, Boel
Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
title Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
title_full Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
title_fullStr Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
title_full_unstemmed Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
title_short Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
title_sort health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between mr and ct radiographers
topic Magnetic Resonance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35674823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y
work_keys_str_mv AT glansanton healtheffectsrelatedtoexposureofstaticmagneticfieldsandacousticnoisecomparisonbetweenmrandctradiographers
AT wilenjonna healtheffectsrelatedtoexposureofstaticmagneticfieldsandacousticnoisecomparisonbetweenmrandctradiographers
AT lindgrenlenita healtheffectsrelatedtoexposureofstaticmagneticfieldsandacousticnoisecomparisonbetweenmrandctradiographers
AT bjorkmanburtscherisabellam healtheffectsrelatedtoexposureofstaticmagneticfieldsandacousticnoisecomparisonbetweenmrandctradiographers
AT hanssonboel healtheffectsrelatedtoexposureofstaticmagneticfieldsandacousticnoisecomparisonbetweenmrandctradiographers