Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

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. LU and Hansson, Boel LU (2022) In European Radiology 32(11). p.7896-7909
Abstract

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... (More)

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, CI95: 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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Electromagnetic fields, Magnetic resonance imaging, Occupational health, Surveys and questionnaires, Tomography, X-ray computed
in
European Radiology
volume
32
issue
11
pages
14 pages
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • scopus:85131511465
  • pmid:35674823
ISSN
0938-7994
DOI
10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
b285d2b9-9f87-45af-abfc-475538a26446
date added to LUP
2022-12-27 16:02:25
date last changed
2024-05-16 22:46:42
@article{b285d2b9-9f87-45af-abfc-475538a26446,
  abstract     = {{<p>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<sub>95</sub>: 1.05–3.93). Stress was a significant confounder. Work-related noise was rated as more troublesome by CT than MR personnel (p &lt; 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.</p>}},
  author       = {{Glans, Anton and Wilén, Jonna and Lindgren, Lenita and Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M. and Hansson, Boel}},
  issn         = {{0938-7994}},
  keywords     = {{Electromagnetic fields; Magnetic resonance imaging; Occupational health; Surveys and questionnaires; Tomography, X-ray computed}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{11}},
  pages        = {{7896--7909}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  series       = {{European Radiology}},
  title        = {{Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y}},
  volume       = {{32}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}