One of the newly developing fields of medicine is interventional radiology (IR) since it implements the most modern non-invasive technologies. The 70-the 80s of the twentieth century were marked by rapid progress in radiology (Bilello et al., 2020). At that time, new diagnostic tools and methods were introduced and developed – computed tomography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and image digitization. IR is a medical area that uses methods of treatment of various diseases using percutaneous approaches, catheters, and other low-traumatic instruments, without anesthesia, under the control of radiation imaging methods (Shaw et al., 2010). Although the advanced tools allow for better patient health outcomes, radiation still poses a big threat to professionals’ health. The problem can be seen from different sides due to its multifaceted nature. It presumes that the discipline is complicated by several aspects, such as historical, mathematical, and some others. The issue is widely discussed in terms of ethics and culture, which have greatly influenced major tenants of a profession. Interventional radiology is a little-known and well-established field with many unexplored users; however, it poses great occupational risks and increases the likelihood of workplace-related trauma.
This paper aims to incorporate historical, mathematical, cultural, and ethical perspectives on interventional radiology and the risks it poses to specialists. Since the introduction of the discipline in 1963 by Charles Dotter, the radiation levels have been incredibly high, and non-invasive operations were rarely carried out to elude any workplace-related hazards (Miller et al., 2010). However, there are currently more specialists in the field who use more advanced protective measures to avoid radiation in massive dosages. The mathematical standpoint views the problem in terms of calculating the proper doses of radiation that do not expose anyone to potential health issues. Additionally, it observes the probable patient-per-specialist ratio since the professionals are in demand (Bilello et al., 2020). The cultural outlook presupposes that IR has a specific culture of safety, and its standards should be strictly followed to avoid occupational risks. Moreover, it considers how inclusive and culturally diverse the field is. Finally, ethics takes into account the Code of Ethics’ power to protect the personnel from any professional hazards. It also explores how advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are associated with technology-related dangers and their prevention measures.
The information for the paper was obtained through a thorough search in the databases such as JSTOR, ResearchGate, WorldCat, and Elsevier. Additionally, American and British medical journals on interventional radiology were explored in order to retrieve peer-reviewed material. For search facilitation, the following topic-related terms were used: interventional radiology, occupational risks, radiologists, radiation exposure, protective radiation measures, artificial intelligence, the Code of Ethics, and safety culture. Even though these terms have alleviated information retrieval, some data regarding several perspectives are missing due to the field’s relatively recent appearance. For instance, the historical standpoint can be fully observed since the history of the discipline is open access. In contrast, the ethical point of view is still underdeveloped because of its ever-changing safety standards. Hence, more peer-reviewed articles should be reviewed to receive a full-fledged picture of IR. One special filter that was applied refers to the publication date: the papers should have been published within the last 15 years. Since the field is relatively new, not many scholarly articles were issued. Ultimately, the research can be continued if other perspectives, such as scientific, social, and others alike.
Bilello, J., Patel, S., Potluri, V., Gill, G. S., & Bagherpour, A. N. (2020). Characterizing the online presence of interventional radiologists: A potential marketing opportunity. Cureus, 12(7), 1-7. Web.
Miller, D. L., Vano, E., Bartal, G., Balter, S., Dixon, R., Padovani, R., Schueler, B., Cardella, J. F., & Baere, T. (2010). Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: A joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of Europe and the society of interventional radiology. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 33, 230-239. Web.
Shaw, A., Speirs, A. J. D., & Howlett, D. (2010). Current applications of interventional radiology. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 71(11), 619-625. Web.