Development and assessment of an educational application for the proper use of ceiling-suspended radiation shielding screens in angiography rooms using augmented reality technology

Evaluation of radiation protection effectivity in a cardiac angiography room using visualized scattered radiation distribution

In this study, we devised a radiation protection tool specifically designed for healthcare professionals and students engaged in cardiac catheterization to easily monitor and evaluate scattered radiation distribution across diverse C-arm angles and arbitrary physician associated staff positions-scrub nurse and technologist positions. In this study, scattered radiation distributions in an angiography room were calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation of particle and heavy ion transport code system (PHITS) code. Four visualizations were performed under different C-arm angles with and without radiation protection: (1) a dose profile, (2) a 2D cross-section, (3) a 3D scattered radiation distribution, and (4) a 4D scattered radiation distribution. The simulation results detailing the scattered radiation distribution in PHITS were exported in Visualization Toolkit format and visualized through the open-source visualization application ParaView for analysis. Visualization of the scattered dose showed that dose distribution depends on the C-arm angle and the x-ray machine output parameters (kV, mAs s-1, beam filtration) which depend upon beam angulation to the patient body. When irradiating in the posterior-anterior direction, the protective curtain decreased the dose by 62% at a point 80 cm from the floor, where the physician's gonads are positioned. Placing the protection board close to the x-ray tube reduced the dose by 24% at a location 160 cm from the floor, where the lens of the eye is situated. Notably, positioning the protection board adjacent to the physician resulted in a 95.4% reduction in incident air kerma. These visualization displays can be combined to understand the spread and direction of the scattered radiation distribution and to determine where and how to operate and place radiation protection devices, accounting for the different beam angulations encountered in interventional cases. This study showed that scatter visualization could be a radiation protection teaching aid for students and medical staff in angiography rooms.

Effect of backscatter radiation on the occupational eye-lens dose

We quantified the level of backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads using a phantom. We also evaluated the shielding rate of the protective eyewear and optimal placement of the eye-dedicated dosimeter (skin surface or behind the Pb-eyewear). We performed diagnostic X-rays of two head phantoms: Styrofoam (negligible backscatter radiation) and anthropomorphic (included backscatter radiation). Radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters were used to measure the eye-lens dose, with or without 0.07-mm Pb-equivalent protective eyewear. We used tube voltages of 50, 65 and 80 kV because the scattered radiation has a lower mean energy than the primary X-ray beam. The backscatter radiation accounted for 17.3-22.3% of the eye-lens dose, with the percentage increasing with increasing tube voltage. Furthermore, the shielding rate of the protective eyewear was overestimated, and the eye-lens dose was underestimated when the eye-dedicated dosimeter was placed behind the protective eyewear. We quantified the backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads. To account for the effect of backscatter radiation, an anthropomorphic, rather than Styrofoam, phantom should be used. Close contact of the dosimeter with the skin surface is essential for accurate evaluation of backscatter radiation from physician's own heads. To assess the eye-lens dose accurately, the dosimeter should be placed near the eye. If the dosimeter is placed behind the lens of the protective eyewear, we recommend using a backscatter radiation calibration factor of 1.2-1.3.

Comparison of shielding effects of over-glasses-type and regular eyewear in terms of occupational eye dose reduction

Given the new recommendations for occupational eye lens doses, various lead glasses have been used to reduce irradiation of interventional radiologists. However, the protection afforded by lead glasses over prescription glasses (thus over-glasses-type eyewear) has not been considered in detail. We used a phantom to compare the protective effects of such eyewear and regular eyewear of 0.07 mm lead-equivalent thickness. The shielding rates behind the eyewear and on the surface of the left eye of an anthropomorphic phantom were calculated. The left eye of the phantom was irradiated at various angles and the shielding effects were evaluated. We measured the radiation dose to the left side of the phantom using RPLDs attached to the left eye and to the surface/back of the left eyewear. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded good protection against x-rays from the left and below; the average shielding rates on the surface of the left eye ranged from 0.70-0.72. In clinical settings, scattered radiation is incident on physicians' eyes from the left and below, and through any gap in lead glasses. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded better protection than regular eyewear of the same lead-equivalent thickness at the irradiation angles of concern in clinical settings. Although clinical evaluation is needed, we suggest over-glasses-type Pb eyewear even for physicians who do not wear prescription glasses.

Eye lens dose in spine surgeons during myelography procedures: a dosimetry study

To determine the eye lens dose (3 mm dose equivalent [Hp(3)]) received by spine surgeons during myelography and evaluate the effectiveness of radiation-protective glasses and x-ray tube system positioning in reducing radiation exposure. This study included spine surgeons who performed myelography using over- or under-table x-ray tube systems. Hp(3) was measured for each examination using a radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter (GD-352M) mounted on radiation-protective glass. This study identified significantly high Hp(3) levels, especially in the right eye lens in spinal surgeons. The median Hp(3) values in the right eye were 524 (391-719) and 58 (42-83)μSv/examination for over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. Further, Hp(3)AK, which was obtained by dividing the cumulative air kerma from Hp(3), was 8.09 (6.69-10.21) and 5.11 (4.06-6.31)μSv mGy-1for the over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. Implementing radiation-protective glasses resulted in dose reduction rates of 54% (50%-57%) and 54% (51%-60%) for the over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. The use of radiation protection glasses significantly reduced the radiation dose in the eye lens during myelography, with the most effective measures being the combination of using radiation protection glasses and an under-table x-ray tube system.

Eye Lens Radiation Dose to Nurses during Cardiac Interventional Radiology: An Initial Study

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses.

Extended Reality in Diagnostic Imaging-A Literature Review

The utilization of extended reality (ER) has been increasingly explored in the medical field over the past ten years. A comprehensive analysis of scientific publications was conducted to assess the applications of ER in the field of diagnostic imaging, including ultrasound, interventional radiology, and computed tomography. The study also evaluated the use of ER in patient positioning and medical education. Additionally, we explored the potential of ER as a replacement for anesthesia and sedation during examinations. The use of ER technologies in medical education has received increased attention in recent years. This technology allows for a more interactive and engaging educational experience, particularly in anatomy and patient positioning, although the question may be asked: is the technology and maintenance cost worth the investment? The results of the analyzed studies suggest that implementing augmented reality in clinical practice is a positive phenomenon that expands the diagnostic capabilities of imaging studies, education, and positioning. The results suggest that ER has significant potential to improve diagnostic imaging procedures' accuracy and efficiency and enhance the patient experience through increased visualization and understanding of medical conditions. Despite these promising advancements, further research is needed to fully realize the potential of ER in the medical field and to address the challenges and limitations associated with its integration into clinical practice.

Spatial Scattering Radiation to the Radiological Technologist during Medical Mobile Radiography

Mobile radiography allows for the diagnostic imaging of patients who cannot move to the X-ray examination room. Therefore, mobile X-ray equipment is useful for patients who have difficulty with movement. However, staff are exposed to scattered radiation from the patient, and they can receive potentially harmful radiation doses during radiography. We estimated occupational exposure during mobile radiography using phantom measurements. Scattered radiation distribution during mobile radiography was investigated using a radiation survey meter. The efficacy of radiation-reducing methods for mobile radiography was also evaluated. The dose decreased as the distance from the X-ray center increased. When the distance was more than 150 cm, the dose decreased to less than 1 μSv. It is extremely important for radiological technologists (RTs) to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient to reduce radiation exposure. The spatial dose at eye-lens height increases when the bed height is high, and when the RT is short in stature and abdominal imaging is performed. Maintaining sufficient distance from the patient is also particularly effective in limiting radiation exposure of the eye lens. Our results suggest that the doses of radiation received by staff during mobile radiography are not significant when appropriate radiation protection is used. To reduce exposure, it is important to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient. Therefore, RTs should bear this is mind during mobile radiography.

Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafeTM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R2 = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications.

Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians

Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk. Furthermore, radiation eye injury (i.e., cataract) in IVR staff have also been reported. It is crucial to protect the eyes of IVR physicians from X-ray radiation exposure. Many IVR physicians use protective Pb eyeglasses to reduce occupational eye exposure. However, the shielding effects of Pb eyeglasses are inadequate. We developed a novel shield for the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians. The novel shield consists of a neck and face guard (0.25 mm Pb-equivalent rubber sheet, nonlead protective sheet). The face shield is positioned on the left side of the IVR physician. We assessed the shielding effects of the novel shield using a phantom in the IVR X-ray system; a radiophotoluminescence dosimeter was used to measure the radiation exposure. In this phantom study, the effectiveness of the novel device for protecting against radiation was greater than 80% in almost all measurement situations, including in terms of eye lens exposure. A large amount of scattered radiation reaches the left side of IVR physicians. The novel radiation shield effectively protects the left side of the physician from this scattered radiation. Thus, the device can be used to protect the face and eyes of IVR physicians from occupational radiation exposure. The novel device will be useful for protecting the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians from radiation, and thus could reduce the rate of radiation injury. Based on the positive results of this phantom study, we plan to perform a clinical experiment to further test the utility of this novel radiation shield for IVR physicians.

Radiation Protection of the Eye Lens in Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures

The medical staff involved in fluoroscopy-guided procedures are at potential risks of radiation-induced cataract. Therefore, proper monitoring of the lens doses is critical, and radiation protection should be provided to the maximum extent that is reasonably achievable. The collar dosimeter is necessary to avoid underestimation of the lens dose, and the third dosimeter behind the protective eyewear would be helpful for those who are likely to exceed the dose limit. The reduction of the patient doses will correspondingly reduce the staff doses. Proper placement of the ceiling-mounted shields and minimization of the face-to-glass gap are the keys to effective shielding. The optimization of procedures and devices that help maintain a distance from the irradiated area and to prevent the looking-up posture will substantially reduce the lens dose.

What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?

Protection against occupational radiation exposure in clinical settings is important. This paper clarifies the present status of medical occupational exposure protection and possible additional safety measures. Radiation injuries, such as cataracts, have been reported in physicians and staff who perform interventional radiology (IVR), thus, it is important that they use shielding devices (e.g., lead glasses and ceiling-suspended shields). Currently, there is no single perfect radiation shield; combinations of radiation shields are required. Radiological medical workers must be appropriately educated in terms of reducing radiation exposure among both patients and staff. They also need to be aware of the various methods available for estimating/reducing patient dose and occupational exposure. When the optimizing the dose to the patient, such as eliminating a patient dose that is higher than necessary, is applied, exposure of radiological medical workers also decreases without any loss of diagnostic benefit. Thus, decreasing the patient dose also reduces occupational exposure. We propose a novel four-point policy for protecting medical staff from radiation: patient dose Optimization, Distance, Shielding, and Time (pdO-DST). Patient dose optimization means that the patient never receives a higher dose than is necessary, which also reduces the dose received by the staff. The patient dose must be optimized: shielding is critical, but it is only one component of protection from radiation used in medical procedures. Here, we review the radiation protection/reduction basics for radiological medical workers, especially for IVR staff.