A study of the underestimation of eye lens dose with current eye dosemeters for interventional clinicians wearing lead glasses

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.

Evaluation of novel radiation protection devices during radiologically guided interventions

BACKGROUND

In radiologically guided interventions, medical practitioners are subjected to radiation exposure, which may lead to radiation-induced diseases. In this study, novel radiation shields for the head and neck were evaluated for their potential to reduce radiation exposure.

METHOD

An anthropomorphic phantom was exposed on its left side to scattered radiation from beneath to simulate the exposure of an operator in a x-ray operating room. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were positioned at different depths in five slices in the phantom, measuring personal dose equivalent. Two different set up situations were evaluated: a head protector designed to reduce radiation in the upper section of the head; and a novel thyroid protector prototype extended in the front and on both sides, designed to reduce radiation in the lower and middle sections of the head. A standard thyroid collar prototype and a ceiling mounted lead glass shield were used as comparisons. Furthermore, the head protector was evaluated in a clinical study in which TLDs were positioned to measure scattered radiation exposure to the heads of operators during endovascular interventions.

RESULTS

The extended thyroid protector reduced the scattered radiation in the throat, chin, and ear slices. Some shielding effect was seen in the brain and skull slices. The head protector showed a shielding effect in the skull slice up to two cm depth where it covered the phantom head. As expected, the ceiling mounted lead glass shield reduced the scattered radiation in all measuring points.

CONCLUSIONS

A ceiling mounted lead glass shield is an effective radiation protection for the head, but in clinical practice, optimal positioning of a ceiling mounted lead shield may not always be possible, particularly during complex cases when radiation protection may be most relevant. Added protection using these novel guards may compliment the shielding effect of the ceiling mounted lead shield. The head protector stand-alone did not provide sufficient protection of the head. The extended thyroid protector stand-alone provided sufficient protection in the lower and middle sections of the head and neck.

Evaluation of factors associated with the effectiveness of radiation protection glasses

The effects of lead equivalent and lens area of radiation-protective eyewear on lens exposure control were examined. The simulated patient underwent 10-min X-ray fluoroscopy, and the lens dose of the simulated surgeon wearing radiation protection glasses was measured using lens dosemeters attached to the corner of the eye and eyeball. In total, 10 types of radiation protection glasses were selected for measurement. Correlation analysis of the equivalent dose in the lens of the eye with lead equivalence and lens area was performed. The equivalent dose in the lens of the eye of the corner of the eye was negatively correlated with the area of the lens. The equivalent dose in the lens of the eye and the eyeball showed a strong negative correlation with lead equivalence. Lens dosemeters worn at the corner of the eye may overestimate the equivalent dose in the lens of the eye. Moreover, the reduction in exposure of the lens was significantly influenced by the lead equivalent.

Evaluation of operator eye exposure and eye protective devices in interventional radiology: Results on clinical staff and phantom

PURPOSE

To assess occupational eye lens dose based on clinical monitoring of interventional radiologists and to assess personal protective eyewear (PPE) efficacy through measurements with anthropomorphic phantom.

METHODS

Two positions of the operator with respect to X-ray beam were simulated with phantom. Dose reduction factor (DRF) of four PPE was assessed, as well as correlation between eye lens and whole-body doses. Brain dose was also assessed. Five radiologists were monitored for one-year clinical procedures. All subjects were equipped with whole-body dosimeter placed over lead apron at the chest level and eye lens dosimeter placed over the left side of the PPE. Kerma-Area Product (KAP) of procedures performed during the monitoring period was recorded. The correlation of eye lens dose with whole-body dose and KAP was assessed.

RESULTS

DRF was 4.3/2.4 for wraparound glasses, 4.8/1.9 for fitover glasses, 9.1/6.8 for full-face visor in radial/femoral geometries. DRF of half-face visor depended on how it is worn (range 1.0-4.9). Statistically significant correlation between dose value over the PPE and chest dose was observed, while there was no correlation between eye lens dose and chest dose. The results on clinical staff showed statistically significant correlation between dose values over the PPE and KAP.

CONCLUSIONS

All PPE showed significant DRF in all configurations, provided they were worn correctly. Single DRF value is not applicable to all clinical situations. KAP is a valuable tool for determining appropriate radiation protection measures.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TYPES OF PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR AND EYE LENS DOSE WITHIN ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY

In this study, variations in eye lens dose across different types of protective operator eyewear as well as the most appropriate protective methods when conducting endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were evaluated. The eye lens doses of 10 types of commercially available protective eyewear were compared. The ratio of the measured value near the eye to the measured value at the eye lens position ranged from 0.65 to 5.40 and it varied according to the mounting position of the dosemeter as well as the type of protective eyewear. Thus, the eye lens dose may have been overestimated or underestimated. Regardless of the working conditions, a face shield type of protective eyewear is recommended to reduce the eye lens dose. Moreover, it is preferable to attach a lens dosemeter near the eye to measure and evaluate the eye lens dose.

An investigation into potential improvements in the design of lead glasses for protecting the eyes of interventional cardiologists

The lens of the eye can be damaged by ionising radiation, so individuals whose eyes are exposed to radiation during their work may need to protect their eyes from exposure. Lead glasses are widely available, but there are questions about their efficiency in providing eye protection. In this study, Monte Carlo simulations are used to assess the efficiency of lead glasses in protecting the sensitive volume of the eye lens. Two designs currently available for interventional cardiologists are a wraparound (WA) style and ones with flat frontal lenses with side shielding. These designs were considered together with four modifications that would impact upon their efficiency: changing the lead equivalent thickness, adding lead to the frames, elongating the frontal lenses, and adding a closing shield to the bottom rim. For the eye closest to the source, standard models of lead glasses only decrease the radiation reaching the most sensitive region of the eye lens by 22% or less. Varying the lead thickness between 0.4 mm and 0.75 mm had little influence on the protection provided in the simulation of clinical use, neither did adding lead to the frames. Improved shielding was obtained by elongating the frontal lens, which could reduce radiation reaching the eye lens by up to 76%. Glasses with lenses that had a rim at the base, extending towards the face of the user, also provided better shielding than current models, decreasing the dose by up to 80%. In conclusion, elongating the frontal lens of lead glasses, especially of the WA design, could provide a three-fold increase in shielding efficiency and this is still valid for lenses with 0.4 mm lead equivalence.

CORRELATION BETWEEN ROUTINE PERSONAL DOSIMETRY READING AND THE DOSE TO THE BRAIN OF INTERVENTIONAL STAFF

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the brain absorbed dose and personal dosimetry readings in interventional cardiologists. Interventional procedures were replicated using Monte Carlo simulations (MCNP 6) with anthropomorphic phantoms representing both operator and patient. Absorbed doses were evaluated for 10 predefined regions of the operator's brain as well as for dosemeters at chest and neck level. One beam quality (HVL = 6.2 mm Al) and nine beam projections were considered. A significant bias in the laterality of brain dose was found with doses at the left side of the brain being up to 2.8 times higher compared with the right. The correlation between brain dose and dosemeter reading was found to be dependent on beam projection. Yet, a generalized conversion factor (brain dose normalized by Hp(10)), averaged over all considered beam projections, could be proposed for (retrospective) brain dose estimation from routinely measured dosimetry data.

Assessment of eye doses to staff involved in interventional cardiology procedures in Kuwait

In this study, which is the first of its kind in the gulf region, eye doses of interventional cardiologists and nurses were measured using active dosimeters for left and right eyes, in 60 percutaneous coronary interventions in three main hospitals in Kuwait. The dose given in terms of H_p(0.07) per procedure when ceiling suspended screens were used by main operators ranged from 18.5 to 30.3 µSv for the left eye and from 12.6 to 23.6 µSv for the right eye. Taking into account typical staff workload, the results show that the dose limit of 20 mSv/year to the eyes can be exceeded for interventional cardiologists in some situations, which demonstrates the need of using additional effective radiation protection tools, e.g. protective eye spectacles, in addition to the regular and proper use of ceiling suspended screens. With indications of increase in workload, the need for availability of a dedicated active dosimeter for the regular monitoring of eye doses is emphasized.

Occupational eye lens dose in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a dedicated eye lens dosimeter

Increased x-ray exposure to physicians' eye lenses during radiology procedures is a significant concern. In this study, x-ray exposure to the eye was measured using an anthropomorphic head phantom, with and without radiation-protective devices, to examine the dose of x-ray radiation that physicians are exposed to during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). X-ray exposure of the eye was measured using novel dedicated direct eye lens dosimeters that could specifically measureH_p(3) during the ERCP procedure. The spatial dose in the height direction of the physician was measured using an ionization chamber dosimeter. Eye dosimeters were attached inside and outside the lead (Pb) glasses attached to the head of the human phantom to demonstrate its protective effect. Irradiation from the system lasted for 30 min. When the overcouch x-ray tube system is used, the cumulative radiation dose over the 30 min x-ray fluoroscopy time, without the use of radiation-protective devices, to the left and right eyes was 3.7 and 1.5 mSv, respectively. This dose was estimated to be the dose to the lens per therapeutic ERCP examination. With radiation-protective glasses, the dose reduced to 1.8 and 1.0 mSv for the left and right eye, respectively. The results of our study indicated that radiation exposure to the eye was reduced by up to 80.0% using Pb glasses and by 96.8% using radiation-protective curtains. Our study indicates that a physician's maximum radiation exposure to the eyes during an ERCP procedure may be above the level recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection when the physician does not use radiation-protective devices. The eyewear, which is larger and fitted more closely to the face, provided a better protection effect even with a low lead equivalence, demonstrating that the shape of eyewear is important for protective function.

Occupational radiation exposure to the lens of the eye in interventional radiology

INTRODUCTION

Cataract formation is a tissue reaction effected by radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occupational exposure to the lens of the eye of interventional radiologists (IR's) and interventional radiology staff, with and without lead glasses.

METHODS

Ethical approval was provided by the hospital research and ethics committee. A prospective cohort study was performed over 1 year, doses recorded, lifetime dose (estimated at working 5 days in angiography, for 30 years) was estimated and dose compared to current guidelines. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs; Landauer, Glenwood, USA) Hp(3) were placed on both the exterior and interior side of the personal lead glasses worn by three interventional radiologists and two radiographers. They were monitored during all procedures performed within 1 year. Lead glasses (AttenuTech^® Microlite^® , Florida, USA) with specifications were 0.75 mm lead equivalent front shield, and Side shield 0.3 mm Pb equivalent. A control TLD was placed in the storage location of the lead glasses when not in use. Yearly dose was measured and lifetime dose was calculated from the data obtained. Calculation of dose received per day(s) spent performing procedures for both annual and lifetime exposure was performed. In addition a record of occurrence of splashes on glasses was made after each case.

RESULTS

Eye doses without protection were double the recommended limits for both annual and lifetime dose. For interventional radiologists working between 3 and 4 or more days in the lab per week, annual dose thresholds would be exceeded (20 mSv/year averaged over 5 years, no more than 50 mSv in 1 year). If interventional radiologists worked between 3 and 4 or more days in the lab, lifetime dose thresholds would be exceeded (500 mSv lifetime dose). Lead glasses reduced radiation exposure by an average of 79%. If lead glasses were worn no interventional radiologists would exceed annual or lifetime dose thresholds to the eyes even if working 5 days per week as the primary operator. Radiographers would not exceed annual or lifetime dose thresholds even without lead glasses. Splash incidents occurred for all interventional radiologists and one radiographer.

CONCLUSION

The use of lead glasses even in this small study resulted in a decreased dose of radiation to the lens of the eye. Regular use of radiation protection eyewear will reduce eye dose for primary proceduralists to well below yearly and lifetime thresholds.

Report of IRPA task group on issues and actions taken in response to the change in eye lens dose limit

In 2018, the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) established its third task group (TG) on the implementation of the eye lens dose limit. To contribute to sharing experience and raising awareness within the radiation protection community about protection of workers in exposure of the lens of the eye, the TG conducted a questionnaire survey and analysed the responses. This paper provides an overview of the results of the questionnaire.

ESTIMATION OF HP(3) AMONG STAFF MEMBERS IN TWO NUCLEAR MEDICINE UNITS IN FINLAND

The eye lens exposure among 16 technicians in two nuclear medicine departments at university hospitals in Finland was investigated by measuring the operational quantity Hp(3) using EYE-D dosemeters. For all workers, the annual mean Hp(3) was estimated to be 1.1 mSv (max. 3.9 mSv). The relation between Hp(3) to routinely monitored personal dose equivalent Hp(10) was clearly correlated. Considering individual dose measurement periods (2-4 weeks), the Hp(3)/Hp(10) ratio was 0.7 (Pearson's coefficient r = 0.90, p < 0.001, variation of ratio 0.1-2.3). The variation decreased considerably with increasing Hp(10) (σ2 = 0.04 vs. 0.43 for Hp(10) > 0.1 mSv vs. < 0.1 mSv, respectively), i.e. higher Hp(10) predicts Hp(3) more reliably. Moreover, annual Hp(10) data from national dose register during 2009-2018 were used to derive the annual Hp(3) applying the Hp(3)/Hp(10) ratio. The data from Finnish nuclear medicine departments imply that routine measurements of Hp(3) among nuclear medicine technicians are not justified.