European consensus on patient contact shielding

The out-of-plane contact shield and mA-modulation - the effect on fetal absorbed dose

The effect of patient shielding on fetal radiation dose was evaluated in computed tomography pulmonary angiography with the out-of-plane shield visible in the localizer but absent in the scan range in chest computed tomography (CT). An anthropomorphic phantom with additional prosthetic pregnancy belly was scanned with different CT scanners using clinical imaging protocols and radiophotoluminescence dosemeters (GD-352 M). The out-of-plane shield decreased the fetal absorbed radiation dose with Siemens Somatom go.Up, Canon Aquilion Prime SP and Canon Aquilion One scanners. The decrease was 3.9%-39.4% (0.01-0.09 mGy). With GE Optima the shield increased the fetal dose by 100% (0.23 mGy), with Canon Aquilion One and GE Optima scanners the abdomen dose increase was 17.5% and 36.4%, respectively (0.61 and 1.38 mGy). Applying an out-of-plane shield outside the scanned volume may increase the fetal radiation dose during CT when using tube current modulation, depending on the make and model of the CT scanner.

To shield or not to shield: shielding may have unintended effects on patient dose in CT

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the patient out-of-plane shield is to reduce the patient radiation dose. Its effect on tube current modulation was evaluated with the out-of-plane shield visible in the localizer but absent in the scan range in chest CT with different CT scanners.

METHODS

An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with six different CT scanners from three different vendors. The chest was first scanned without any shielding, and then with the out-of-plane shield within the localizer but outside the imaged volume. All pitch values of each scanner were used. The tube current values with and without the out-of-plane shield were collected and used to evaluate the effect of overscanning and tube current modulation (TCM) on patient radiation dose.

RESULTS

The highest increase in cumulative mA was 217%, when the pitch was 1.531. The tube current value increased already 8.9 cm before the end of the scanned anatomy and the difference between the tube current of the last slices (with and without the out-of-plane shield in the localizer) was 976%.

CONCLUSION

Applying an out-of-plane shield outside the scanned volume but visible in the localizer images may increase the patient dose considerably if the scanner's TCM function is based only on localizer images.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The use of an out-of-plane shield in CT may strongly increase the tube current modulation and thus provide the patient with a higher radiation dose.

KEY POINTS

• Applying an out-of-plane shield outside the scanned volume but visible in the localizer images may increase patient radiation dose considerably. • The effect is visible with scanners that use solely localizer-based tube current modulation. • Features like overscanning may be difficult for the user to notice when planning the scanning, and yet they may affect tube current modulation and through it to patient dose.

Factors affecting radiographers' use of dose-reduction measures

This study investigates radiographers' views on implementing dose-reduction measures, with a focus on verifying patient identity and pregnancy status, practising gonad shielding in men and using compression. An electronic questionnaire was distributed to radiographers working in general radiography and/or computed tomography. The questionnaire was based on factors from a framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. Ordered logistic regressions were used to analyse associations among factors and use of dose-reduction measures. In total, 466 questionnaires were distributed and 170 radiographers (36%) completed them. Clear instructions and routines, support from colleagues, knowledge and experience, a strong safety culture, managerial support and access to proper equipment influence the likelihood of using dose-reduction measures. The strongest associations were found between support from colleagues and verifying pregnancy status (OR = 5.65,P= 0.026), safety culture and use of gonad shielding (OR = 2.36,P= 0.042), and having enough time and use of compression (OR = 2.11,P= 0.003). A strong safety culture and a supportive work environment appears to be essential for the use of dose-reduction measures, and education, training and stress management can improve utilisation of dose-reduction measures.

Management of pregnant or potentially pregnant patients undergoing diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures: Investigation of clinical routine practice

It is well known that foetuses are highly sensitive to ionising radiation and special attention to justification and optimisation of radiological procedures involving a pregnant patient is required. A task to review, validate and compare different approaches to managing the pregnant patient and to estimating the associated foetal doses arising from a diagnostic or interventional radiology (DIR) procedure was designed in the framework of EURADOS working group 12. As a first step, a survey of radiation protection practice including dosimetry considerations among EURADOS members was performed using online questionnaire. Then, to evaluate the possible differences in the estimated foetal doses, a comparison of assessed dose values was made for three cases of pregnant patients that underwent different CT procedures. More than 120 professionals from 108 institutions and 17 countries that are involved in managing pregnant patients undergoing DIR procedures answered the questionnaire. Most of the respondents use national or hospital guidelines on the management of pregnant patients undergoing DIR procedures. However, the guidelines differ considerably among respondents. Comparison of foetal dose assessments performed by dosimetry experts showed the variety of methods used as well as large variability of estimated foetal doses in all three cases. Although European and International commission on radiation protection guidelines already exist, they are more than 20 years old and, in some aspects, they are obsolete. This paper shows that there is a need to revise and update these guidelines.

A survey of patient contact shielding in dental teaching hospitals in the UK

A high volume of dental imaging is carried out each year. In the UK, guidance on the use of patient contact shielding for these investigations is published by the British Institute of Radiology (BIR) and in a document jointly produced by the Faculty of General Dental Practice and Public Health England (FGDP/PHE). Both these sources of guidance have been updated recently and patient contact shielding is no longer recommended for most imaging settings in dental radiology. It is unclear whether radiology departments at dental teaching hospitals in the UK are aware of these sources of guidance, and how this relates to clinical practice within these departments. A survey was carried out exploring the awareness of current guidelines and clinical practice at dental teaching hospitals in the UK. The survey was sent to a representative at 17 different dental teaching hospital radiology departments. Responses were received from 11 departments. The range of intra-oral and extra-oral imaging carried out at these departments was comparable. Ten departments were aware of the existence of national guidelines for patient contact shielding, however only four were specifically aware of the recent BIR guidelines and only four were specifically aware of the FGDP/PHE guidelines. No department was aware of both sets of guidelines. No departments used thyroid protection for bitewing, periapical, lower 45 degree occlusal, panoramic or lateral cephalometric radiographs. Six departments sometimes or always used thyroid protection for upper standard occlusal imaging. Two departments used thyroid protection for cone beam CT imaging. No departments routinely used lead aprons on patients for dental imaging. In conclusion, radiology departments at dental teaching hospitals in the UK do not use patient contact shielding for most imaging situations in dental radiology. There is mixed awareness of current national guidelines, but the reported clinical practice aligns well with the current guidelines.