A review of radiology staff doses and dose monitoring requirements

Medical staff dose estimation during pediatric cardiac interventional procedures

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the occupational doses (eye lens, extremities and whole body) in paediatric cardiac interventional and diagnostic catheterization procedures performed in a paediatric reference hospital located in Recife, Pernambuco. For eye lens dosimetry, the results show that the left eye receives a higher dose than the right eye, and there is a small difference between the doses received during diagnostic (D) and therapeutic (T) procedures. The extrapolated annual values for the most exposed eye are close to the annual limit. For doses to the hands, it was observed that in a significant number of procedures (37 out of 45 therapeutic procedures, or 82%) at least one hand of the physician was exposed to the primary beam. During diagnostic procedures, the physician's hand was in the radiation field in 11 of the 17 catheterization procedures (65%). This resulted in a 10-fold increase in dose to the hands. The results underscore the need for optimization of radiation safety and continued efforts to engage staff in a radiation safety culture.

Ratios of Eye Lens and Hand Equivalent Doses with Whole-Body Effective Doses for Operators Performing Interventional Radiological Procedures

ABSTRACT

Estimating radiation doses for operators performing interventional radiological procedures is crucial in the occupational radiation protection of medical staff. In this study, Monte Carlo simulations coupled with an anthropomorphic phantom were used to model various exposure scenarios during the procedures. Conversion coefficients of the dose-area product of x rays for the eye lens equivalent dose, hand equivalent dose, and whole-body effective dose of the operator were calculated. Accordingly, the relationships between these dose quantities in typical interventional configurations were established, considering various source locations, tube voltages, and use of protective equipment or not. The results are presented in a systematic way for easy comparison and use. Tables and figures of the data can be helpful to provide estimates of eye lens and hand equivalent doses when records of specific dosimeters are absent, such as in the retrospective assessment of operators' eye lens and hand equivalent doses in past practices.

Occupational exposure to physicians working with a Zero-Gravity™ protection system in haemodynamic and electrophysiology labs and the assessment of its performance against a standard ceiling suspended shield

A two centre clinical study was performed to analyse exposure levels of cardiac physicians performing electrophysiology and haemodynamic procedures with the use of state of the art Zero-Gravity™ radiation protective system (ZG). The effectiveness of ZG was compared against the commonly used ceiling suspended lead shield (CSS) in a haemodynamic lab. The operator's exposure was assessed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) during both ablation (radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation (CRYA)) and angiography and angioplasty procedures (CA/PCI). The dosimeters were placed in multiple body regions: near the left eye, on the left side of the neck, waist and chest, on both hands and ankles during each measurement performed with the use of ZG. In total 29 measurements were performed during 105 procedures. To compare the effectiveness of ZG against CSS an extra 80 measurements were performed with the standard lead apron, thyroid collar and ceiling suspended lead shield during CA/PCI procedures. For ZG, the upper values for the average eye lens and whole body doses per procedure were 4 µSv and 16 µSv for the left eye lens in electrophysiology lab (with additionally used CSS) and haemodynamic lab (without CSS), respectively, and about 10 µSv for the remaining body parts (neck, chest and waist) in both labs. The skin doses to hands and ankles non-protected by the ZG were 5 µSv for the most exposed left finger and left ankle in electrophysiology lab, while in haemodynamic lab 150 µSv and 17 µSv, respectively. The ZG performance was 3 times (p < 0.05) and at least 15 times (p < 0.05) higher for the eye lenses and thoracic region, respectively, compared to CSS (with dosimeters on the apron/collar). However, when only ZG was used slightly higher normalised doses were observed for the left finger compared to CSS (5.88e - 2 Sv/Gym² vs. 4.31 e - 2 Sv/Gym², p = 0.016). The study results indicate that ZG performance is superior to CSS. It can be simultaneously used with the ceiling suspended lead shield to ensure the protection to the hands as long as this is not obstructive for the work.

What Is Worth Knowing in Interventional Practices about Medical Staff Radiation Exposure Monitoring: A Review of Recent Outcomes of EURADOS Working Group 12

EURADOS (European Radiation Dosimetry Group) Working Group 12 (WG12) SG1 activities are aimed at occupational radiation protection and individual monitoring in X-ray and nuclear medicine practices. In recent years, many studies have been carried out in these fields, especially for interventional radiology and cardiology workplaces (IC/IR). The complexity of the exposure conditions of the medical staff during interventional practices makes the radiation protection and monitoring of the exposed workers a challenging task. The scope of the present work is to review some of the main results obtained within WG12 activities about scattered field characterization and personal dosimetry that could be very useful in increasing the quality of radiation protection of the personnel, safety, and awareness of radiation risk. Two papers on Monte Carlo modelling of interventional theater and three papers on active personal dosimeters (APDs) for personnel monitoring were considered in the review. More specifically, Monte Carlo simulation was used as the main tool to characterize the levels of exposure of the medical staff, allowing to determine how beam energy and direction can have an impact on the doses received by the operators. Indeed, the simulations provided information about the exposure of the operator’s head, and the study concluded with the determination of an eye-lens protection factor when protection goggles and a ceiling shielding are used. Moreover, the review included the results of studies on active personal dosimeters, their use in IC/IR workplaces, and how they respond to calibration fields, with X-ray standard and pulsed beams. It was shown that APDs are insensitive to backscatter radiation, but some of them could not respond correctly to the very intense pulsed fields (as those next to the patient in interventional practices). The measurements during interventional procedures showed the potential capability of the employment of APDs in hospitals.

Uncertainties in occupational eye lens doses from dosimeters over the apron in interventional practices

It is relevant to estimate the uncertainties in the measurement of eye lens doses from a personal dosimeter over the protective apron without using additional dosimetry near the eyes. Additional dosimetry for interventionists represents a difficulty for routine clinical practice. This study analyses the estimated eye doses from dosimeter values taken at chest level over the apron and their uncertainties. Measurements ofH_p(0.07) using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters located on the chest over the apron and on the glasses (in the inner and outer part of the protection) were taken from ten interventionalists in a university hospital, in the period 2018-2019 during standard clinical practice. For a total sample of 133 interventional procedures included in our study, the ratio between theH_p(0.07) on the glasses (left-outer side) and on the chest over the apron had an average of 0.74, with quartiles of 0.47, 0.64, 0.88. Statistically significant differences were found among operators using the U-Mann-Whitney test. The average transmission factor for the glasses was 0.30, with quartiles of 0.21, 0.25, and 0.32. Different complexity in the procedures, in the quality of the scatter radiation and in the individual operational practices, involve a relevant dispersion in the results for lens dose estimations from the over apron dosimeter. Lens doses may be between a 64% and an 88% of the over apron dosimeter values (using median or 3rd quartile). The use of 88% may be a conservative approach.

Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology/Cardiology-Is State-of-the-Art Equipment Used?

Interventional radiology/cardiology is one of the fields with the highest radiation doses for workers. For this reason, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published new recommendations in 2018 to shield staff from radiation. This study sets out to establish the extent to which these recommendations are observed in Germany. For the study, areas were selected which are known to have relatively high radiation exposure along with good conditions for radiological protection-interventional cardiology, radiology and vascular surgery. The study was advertised with the aid of an information flyer which was distributed via organisations including the German Cardiac Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie- Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e. V.). Everyone who participated in our study received a questionnaire to record their occupational medical history, dosimetry, working practices, existing interventional installations and personal protective equipment. The results were compared with international recommendations, especially those of the ICRP, based on state-of-the-art equipment. A total of 104 respondents from eight German clinics took part in the survey. Four participants had been medically diagnosed with cataracts. None of the participants had previously worn an additional dosimeter over their apron to determine partial-body doses. The interventional installations recommended by the ICRP have not been fitted in all examination rooms and, where they have been put in place, they are not always used consistently. Just 31 participants (36.6%) stated that they "always" wore protective lead glasses or a visor. This study revealed considerable deficits in radiological protection-especially in connection with shielding measures and dosimetric practices pertaining to the head and neck-during a range of interventions. Examination rooms without the recommended interventional installations should be upgraded in the future. According to the principle of dose minimization, there is considerable potential for improving radiation protection. Temporary measurements should be taken over the apron to determine the organ-specific equivalent dose to the lens of the eye and the head.

Monte Carlo evaluation of occupational exposure during uterine artery embolization

PURPOSE

Uterine fibroids affect women mainly of childbearing age, an alternative for the treatment of these fibroids is uterine artery embolization (UAE), a minimally invasive procedure which uses fluoroscopy, providing radiation doses often high, due to the fact that professionals remain in the room throughout the procedure. In this work, equivalent and effective doses were evaluated for the main physician, for the assistant and for the patient during the UAE procedure.

METHODS

Doses were calculated using computer simulation with the Monte Carlo Method, and virtual anthropomorphic phantoms, in a typical scenario of interventional radiology with field sizes of 20 × 20, 25 × 25 and 32 × 32 cm², tube voltages of 70, 80, 90 and 100 kV, and projections of LAO45, RAO45 and PA.

RESULTS

The results showed that the highest doses received by the professionals were for the LAO45 projection with 32 × 32 cm² field size and 100 kV tube voltage, which is in accordance with the existing literature. The highest equivalent doses, without the protective equipment, were in the eyes, skin, breast and stomach for the main physician, and for the assistant they were in the eyes, breast, thyroid and skin. When she used the protective equipment, the highest equivalent doses for the main physician were on the skin, brain, bone marrow and bone surface, and for the assistant they were on the skin, brain, red bone marrow and bone surface.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective doses increased up to 3186% for the main physician, and 2462% for the assistant, without protective equipment, thus showing their importance.

Challenges in Occupational Dosimetry for Interventional Radiologists

This review presents the challenges met by interventional radiologists in occupational dosimetry. The issues mentioned are derived from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the CIRSE guidelines on "Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology" and the requirements of the European directive on Basic Safety Standards. The criteria for a proper use of personal dosimeters and the need to introduce optimization actions in some cases are set out in this review. The pros and cons of the electronic real-time dosimeters are outlined and the potential pitfalls associated with the use of personal dosimeters summarized. The electronic dosimeters, together with the appropriate software, allow an active optimization of the interventional procedures.

Simulation of H p (10) and effective dose received by the medical staff in interventional radiology procedures

Interventional radiology and cardiology are widespread employed techniques for diagnosis and treatment of several pathologies because they avoid the majority of the side-effects associated with surgical treatments, but are known to increase the radiation exposure to patient and operators. In recent years many studies treated the exposure of the operators performing cardiological procedures. The aim of this work is to study the exposure condition of the medical staff in some selected interventional radiology procedures. The Monte Carlo simulations have been employed with anthropomorphic mathematical phantoms reproducing the irradiation scenario of the medical staff with two operators and the patient. A personal dosemeter, put on apron, was modelled for comparison with measurements performed in hospitals, done with electronic dosemeters, in a reduced number of interventional radiology practices. Within the limits associated to the use of numerical anthropomorphic models to mimic a complex interventional procedure, the personal dose equivalent, H _p (10), was evaluated and normalised to the simulated Kerma-Area Product, KAP, value, indeed the effective dose has been calculated. The H _p (10)/KAP_value of the first operator is about 10 μSv/Gy.cm², when ceiling shielding is not used. This value is calculated on the trunk and it varies of +/-30% moving the dosemeter to the waist or to the neck. The effective dose, normalised to the KAP value, varies between 0.03 and 0.4 μSv/Gy.cm². Considering all the unavoidable approximation of this kind of investigations, the comparisons with hospital measurement and literature data showed a good agreement allowing to use of the present results for dosimetric characterisation of interventional radiology procedures.

Evaluation of the current status of the eye lens radiation exposure in an Interventional Radiology department

Background:

Following recent epidemiological studies, which showed tissue reactions from ionizing radiation at significantly lower doses, the 2013/59 EURATOM Directive of 5th December 2013 lowered the limit on the equivalent dose to the eye lens from 150 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, it is considered appropriate to perform a timely dose monitoring by using specific dosimeters.

Objectives:

Analysis of the current state of the eye lens exposures during interventional procedures. The survey aimed at assessing the degree of information available to the exposed workers as regards lowering the dose limit in Interventional Radiology departments of some hospitals in Campania (Southern Italy).

Methods:

The equivalent dose was assessed, over a period of 90 days, using specific Hp dosimeters(3), placed sideways with regard to prescription eye glasses. The level of awareness of the new dose limit among operators was assessed using a questionnaire.

Results:

The values of the equivalent dose to the lens of the eye for the I and II Operators were found to be <150 mSv/year but for the I Operator a value of 54 mSv/year was obtained, ie higher than 20 mSv/year, that is the new limit of the equivalent dose according to 2013/59 EURATOM. The initial results of the questionnaire from 52 exposed workers, of which 46 (88%) were from exposure category A and 6 (12%) from category B, showed a low level of information (19%).

Conclusions:

The results highlight not only the importance of using specific devices for individual protection but also the importance of the level of training and information the exposed medical staff are given concerning the new regulations.

OCCUPATIONAL DOSES FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND OPERATORS IN LEBANESE INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY SUITES

The study monitored occupational dose for 12 interventional cardiologists (first operators) and 10 technicians (second operators), from 10 different Lebanese hospitals performing coronary angiography and precutaneous coronary interventions exclusively on adult patients. Each individual wore dosemeters under and over the lead apron at chest and collar level, respectively, on the wrist and next to the left eye. The total follow-up period for each first/second operator varied between two to six bimonthly monitoring periods. For the first operator, the mean (range) effective, hand and eye lens doses were of 6 (1-41), 112 (10-356) and 15 (5-47) μSv/procedure, respectively. These were of 2.3 (0.1-8), 16 (2-109) and 7 (2-14) μSv/procedure for the second operator. Extrapolated annual eye lens doses revealed that both first and second operators may exceed 3/10th of the annual eye lens dose permissible limit thus supporting the need for dedicated eye lens monitoring.

OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DURING ADULT INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY: FIRST VALUES WITH PERSONAL ACTIVE DOSIMETERS IN CHILE

The objective of this article is to present initial occupational dose values using digital active personal dosimeters for medical staff during adult interventional cardiology procedures in a public hospital in Chile. Personal dose equivalent Hp(10) over the lead apron of physician, nurse and radiographer were measured during 59 procedures. Mean values of occupational dose Hp(10) per procedure were 47.6, 6.2 and 4.3 μSv for physician, nurse and radiographer, respectively. If no protective tools are used, physician dose can exceed the new eye lens dose limit.

EYE LENS DOSIMETRY WITHIN THE CARDIAC CATHETERISATION LABORATORY-ARE ANCILLARY STAFF BEING FORGOTTEN?

Eye lens doses have been widely explored for interventional clinicians, however, data for ancillary staff is limited. Eye doses have been measured using a headband technique for clinicians, specialist registrars, nurses and radiographers working in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory in a UK hospital. Workload was found to be significantly higher for ancillary staff, and consequently, despite the absolute monthly collar doses and other indicators such as eye dose/KAP and eye dose/procedure being highest for clinicians, our study found there was no significant difference in the monthly eye dose readings between the clinicians and nurses (p = 0.82), and clinicians and radiographers (p = 0.72). The average eye dose/collar dose ratios were 0.71 and 0.61 for cardiologists and SPRs, but ratios above one were found for nurses and radiographers. This work expands on the eye dose data available for ancillary staff and demonstrates that eye dosimetry for these workers should not be overlooked.

A Review of Radiation Protection Requirements and Dose Estimation for Staff and Patients in CT Fluoroscopy

The combination of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures with computed tomography (CTF) has become widespread around the world. The benefits of CTF include the ability to obtain a real-time visualization of the entire body, increased target accuracy and improved visualization of biopsy needles. Modern CTF units work with variable frame rates for image selection, and therefore the dose distributions for patients and staff can considerably vary, creating growing concern in terms of the occupational exposure of interventionists and the drawback of a higher exposure of the patient. A literature review of the latest CTF publications is summarized in this article. A wide range of CTF studies reveal different treatment methods used in clinical practice, and therefore the differences in the exposures between them; as well as in the radiation protection tools and dose monitoring. Further optimization of radiation protection methods, harmonization of exposure patterns as well as training and education of CTF staff on the basis of the information in the survey, are strongly recommended.

Real-time, ray casting-based scatter dose estimation for c-arm x-ray system

Objectives

Dosimetric control of staff exposure during interventional procedures under fluoroscopy is of high relevance. In this paper, a novel ray casting approximation of radiation transport is presented and the potential and limitation vs. a full Monte Carlo transport and dose measurements are discussed.

Method

The x‐ray source of a Siemens Axiom Artix C‐arm is modeled by a virtual source model using single Gaussian‐shaped source. A Geant4‐based Monte Carlo simulation determines the radiation transport from the source to compute scatter from the patient, the table, the ceiling and the floor. A phase space around these scatterers stores all photon information. Only those photons are traced that hit a surface of phantom that represents medical staff in the treatment room, no indirect scattering is considered; and a complete dose deposition on the surface is calculated. To evaluate the accuracy of the approximation, both experimental measurements using Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and a Geant4‐based Monte Carlo simulation of dose depositing for different tube angulations of the C‐arm from cranial‐caudal angle 0° and from LAO (Left Anterior Oblique) 0°–90° are realized. Since the measurements were performed on both sides of the table, using the symmetry of the setup, RAO (Right Anterior Oblique) measurements were not necessary.

Results

The Geant4‐Monte Carlo simulation agreed within 3% with the measured data, which is within the accuracy of measurement and simulation. The ray casting approximation has been compared to TLD measurements and the achieved percentage difference was −7% for data from tube angulations 45°–90° and −29% from tube angulations 0°–45° on the side of the x‐ray source, whereas on the opposite side of the x‐ray source, the difference was −83.8% and −75%, respectively. Ray casting approximation for only LAO 90° was compared to a Monte Carlo simulation, where the percentage differences were between 0.5–3% on the side of the x‐ray source where the highest dose usually detected was mainly from primary scattering (photons), whereas percentage differences between 2.8–20% are found on the side opposite to the x‐ray source, where the lowest doses were detected. Dose calculation time of our approach was 0.85 seconds.

Conclusion

The proposed approach yields a fast scatter dose estimation where we could run the Monte Carlo simulation only once for each x‐ray tube angulation to get the Phase Space Files (PSF) for being used later by our ray casting approach to calculate the dose from only photons which will hit an movable elliptical cylinder shaped phantom and getting an output file for the positions of those hits to be used for visualizing the scatter dose propagation on the phantom surface. With dose calculation times of less than one second, we are saving much time compared to using a Monte Carlo simulation instead. With our approach, larger deviations occur only in regions with very low doses, whereas it provides a high precision in high‐dose regions.

EYE LENS EXPOSURE TO MEDICAL STAFF PERFORMING ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY PROCEDURES: DOSE ASSESSMENT AND CORRELATION TO PATIENT DOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the patient exposure and staff eye dose levels during implantation procedures for all types of pacemaker therapy devices performed under fluoroscopic guidance and to investigate potential correlation between patients and staff dose levels. The mean eye dose during pacemaker/defibrillator implementation was 12 µSv for the first operator, 8.7 µSv for the second operator/nurse and 0.50 µSv for radiographer. Corresponding values for cardiac resynchronisation therapy procedures were 30, 26 and 2.0 µSv, respectively. Significant (p < 0.01) correlation between the eye dose and the kerma-area product was found for the first operator and radiographers, but not for other staff categories. The study revealed eye dose per procedure and eye dose normalised to patient dose indices for different staff categories and provided an input for radiation protection in electrophysiology procedures.

OCCUPATIONAL DOSE ASSESSMENT IN INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY IN SERBIA

The objective of this work is to assess the occupational dose in interventional cardiology in a large hospital in Belgrade, Serbia. A double-dosimetry method was applied for the estimation of whole-body dose, using thermoluminescent dosemeters, calibrated in terms of the personal dose equivalent Hp(10). Besides the double-dosimetry method, eye dose was also estimated by means of measuring ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and doses per procedure were reported. Doses were assessed for 13 physicians, 6 nurses and 10 radiographers, for 2 consequent years. The maximum annual effective dose assessed was 4.3, 2.1 and 1.3 mSv for physicians, nurses and radiographers, respectively. The maximum doses recorded by the dosemeter worn at the collar level (over the apron) were 16.8, 11.9 and 4.5 mSv, respectively. This value was used for the eye lens dose assessment. Estimated doses are in accordance with or higher than annual dose limits for the occupational exposure.

EDEL: ENEA DOSEMETER FOR EYE LENS

Since the publication of International Commission on Radiological Protection statement in 2011 on tissue reaction, eye lens radiation protection played an important role in exposed personnel dosimetry. For this reason, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) Individual Monitoring Service decided to study a prototype to fulfil specific requests (e.g. for survey in interventional department and intercomparisons). On the basis of such preliminary investigation, a new eye lens dosemeter was developed. The new dosemeter, named EDEL (ENEA Dosemeter for Eye Lens), was characterised in terms of Hp(3), the operational quantity related to eye lens monitoring. The investigation was performed experimentally and optimised using the Monte Carlo MCNP6 code. The new prototype was thought to fulfil two main requests: the reliability of the dosimetric data and the portability of the dosemeter itself. The new dosemeter will soon be supplied to the collaborating hospitals for workplace test measurements.

Occupational eye lens doses in interventional cardiology. A multicentric study

New European regulation regarding radiological protection of workers and more specifically the new occupational dose limit for the eye lens recently reduced to 20 mSv yr(-1) may affect interventional cardiologists. This paper presents a set of measurements of occupational doses performed in five interventional cardiology centres and then compared with the new dose limit. The measurement of occupational doses was performed over the apron at chest level using electronic dosemeters recording H p(10). In one of the centres, scatter dose at goggles was also measured with optically stimulated luminescence dosemeters calibrated in terms of H p(0.07). An average H p(10) over the apron of 46 μSv/procedure was measured for cardiologists. Lower doses were noted in other professionals like second cardiologists, nurses or anaesthetists. Procedures for valvular and other structural heart diseases involved the highest occupational doses, averaging over 100 μSv/procedure. Important differences in occupational doses among centres may be indicative of different radiation protection habits. The new occupational dose limit for the eye lens is likely to be exceeded by those among the interventionalists who do not use protection tools (ceiling suspended screen and/or goggles) even with standard workloads.

Measurement of occupational doses of ionising radiation to the lens of the eyes of interventional radiologists

Currently, there exists no standardised method for monitoring radiation doses to the eye lens. This investigation aimed to determine the optimum method for monitoring the eye doses for interventional radiologists. Three interventional radiologists were issued with a series of dosimeters to wear during their routine work. These dosimeters were worn at defined positions on the body and the absorbed dose to each position was measured. It was confirmed that the dose received to the thyroid collar followed an apparently well-defined relationship to the dose recorded on the forehead, which is representative of the dose to the lens of the eye. It was also confirmed that, as hypothesised, the dose to the left eye was universally greater than to the right, although by varying factors. It was concluded that the use of dosimeters attached to the inside arms of protective eyewear is the optimum solution for eye lens dosimetry. It was also concluded that, when used with a dose conversion factor which corroborates existing literature, dosimeters attached to the outside of a thyroid collar yield sufficiently accurate results for use in routine dosimetry programmes.

Operator Radiation Exposure in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Guidance

Objectives:

Quantitative analysis of operator dose in cone-beam computed tomography guidance (CBCT-guidance) and the effect of protective shielding.

Methods:

Using a Rando phantom, a model was set-up to measure radiation dose for the operator hand, thyroid and gonad region. The effect of sterile radiation-absorbing drapes and ceiling/couch shielding was measured. Using this model we calculated the dose, based on relevant clinical parameters. The procedures were divided in thoracic and abdominal group. Furthermore, dosimetry measurements were performed during clinical cases to correlate with our calculations.

Results:

One hundred thirteen procedures were included between December 2007 and January 2010 (47 thoracic, 66 abdominal). The mean hand doses were 34.2 and 54.6 µSv (thoracic/abdominal respectively). The thyroid and gonad regions doses were 83.2 and 34.3 µSv in the thoracic, and 66.2 and 47.2 µSv in the abdominal group. Combined shielding reduced the dose by 98.2–98.9% (p<0.05). The radiation dose in clinical setting in the thoracic group (n=17) was 32.9 µSv (hand), 11.4 µSv (thyroid) and 16.0 µSv (gonad region). In the abdominal group (n=20) the doses were 43.4, 21.7 and 18.8 µSv respectively.

Conclusion:

The operator dose in CBCT-guidance without shielding is quite low, compared to the literature. Based on our data, between 375–830 cases can be performed staying below the yearly limit of 20 mSv effective whole-body dose.

Eye lens monitoring for interventional radiology personnel: dosemeters, calibration and practical aspects of H p (3) monitoring. A 2015 review

A thorough literature review about the current situation on the implementation of eye lens monitoring has been performed in order to provide recommendations regarding dosemeter types, calibration procedures and practical aspects of eye lens monitoring for interventional radiology personnel. Most relevant data and recommendations from about 100 papers have been analysed and classified in the following topics: challenges of today in eye lens monitoring; conversion coefficients, phantoms and calibration procedures for eye lens dose evaluation; correction factors and dosemeters for eye lens dose measurements; dosemeter position and influence of protective devices. The major findings of the review can be summarised as follows: the recommended operational quantity for the eye lens monitoring is H p (3). At present, several dosemeters are available for eye lens monitoring and calibration procedures are being developed. However, in practice, very often, alternative methods are used to assess the dose to the eye lens. A summary of correction factors found in the literature for the assessment of the eye lens dose is provided. These factors can give an estimation of the eye lens dose when alternative methods, such as the use of a whole body dosemeter, are used. A wide range of values is found, thus indicating the large uncertainty associated with these simplified methods. Reduction factors from most common protective devices obtained experimentally and using Monte Carlo calculations are presented. The paper concludes that the use of a dosemeter placed at collar level outside the lead apron can provide a useful first estimate of the eye lens exposure. However, for workplaces with estimated annual equivalent dose to the eye lens close to the dose limit, specific eye lens monitoring should be performed. Finally, training of the involved medical staff on the risks of ionising radiation for the eye lens and on the correct use of protective systems is strongly recommended.

Eye dosimetry and protective eyewear for interventional clinicians

Doses to the eyes of interventional clinicians can exceed 20 mSv. Various protective devices can afford protection to the eyes with the final barrier being protective eyewear. The protection provided by lead glasses is difficult to quantify, and the majority of dosimeters are not designed to be worn under lead glasses. This study has measured dose reduction factors (DRFs) equal to the ratio of the dose with no protection, divided by that when lead glasses are worn. Glasses have been tested in X-ray fields using anthropomorphic phantoms to simulate the patient and clinician. DRFs for X-rays incident from the front vary from 5.2 to 7.6, while values for orientations reminiscent of clinical practice are between 1.4 and 5.2. Results suggest that a DRF of two is a conservative factor that could be applied to personal dosimeter measurements to account for the dose reduction provided by most types of lead glasses.

First results of an eye lens dosimetry survey in an interventional cardiology department

The eye lens annual dose limit for exposed personnel to ionizing radiation has recently been revised by the ICRP--International Commission on Radiological Protection and the proposed new limit has been accepted by European legislation through the Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM 2013. Among medical exposed personnel, the staff performing interventional cardiology are usually affected by relevant doses. For this reason a survey, employing dosemeters characterized in terms of H(p)(3), was performed in order to get the order of magnitude of the doses received by the eye lens, at least as a first guess.The survey showed that the annual dose limit can easily be reached if a proper radiation protection approach is not implemented.

Preliminary results of an attempt to predict over apron occupational exposure of cardiologists from cardiac fluoroscopy procedures based on DAP (dose area product) values

This study is an effort to propose a mathematical relation between the occupational exposure measured by a dosimeter worn on a lead apron in the chest region of a cardiologist and the dose area product (DAP) recorded by a meter attached to the X-ray tube. We aimed to determine factors by which DAP values attributed to patient exposure could be converted to the over-apron entrance surface air kerma incurred by cardiologists during an angiographic procedure. A Rando phantom representing a patient was exposed by an X-ray tube from 77 pre-defined directions. DAP value for each exposure angle was recorded. Cardiologist exposure was measured by a Radcal ionization chamber 10X5-180 positioned on a second phantom representing the physician. The exposure conversion factor was determined as the quotient of over apron exposure by DAP value. To verify the validity of this method, the over-apron exposure of a cardiologist was measured using the ionization chamber while performing coronary angiography procedures on 45 patients weighing on average 75 ± 5 kg. DAP values for the corresponding procedures were also obtained. Conversion factors obtained from phantom exposure were applied to the patient DAP values to calculate physician exposure. Mathematical analysis of our results leads us to conclude that a linear relationship exists between two sets of data: (a) cardiologist exposure measured directly by Radcal & DAP values recorded by the X-ray machine system (R (2) = 0.88), (b) specialist measured and estimated exposure derived from DAP values (R (2) = 0.91). The results demonstrate that cardiologist occupational exposure can be derived from patient data accurately.

Derivation and application of dose reduction factors for protective eyewear worn in interventional radiology and cardiology

Doses to the eyes of interventional radiologists and cardiologists could exceed the annual limit of 20 mSv proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Lead glasses of various designs are available to provide protection, but standard eye dosemeters will not take account of the protection they provide. The aim of this study has been to derive dose reduction factors (DRFs) equal to the ratio of the dose with no eyewear, divided by that when lead glasses are worn. Thirty sets of protective eyewear have been tested in x-ray fields using anthropomorphic phantoms to simulate the patient and clinician in two centres. The experiments performed have determined DRFs from simulations of interventional procedures by measuring doses to the eyes of the phantom representing the clinician, using TLDs in Glasgow, Scotland and with an electronic dosemeter in Gothenburg, Sweden. During interventional procedures scattered x-rays arising from the patient will be incident on the head of the clinician from below and to the side. DRFs for x-rays incident on the front of lead glasses vary from 5.2 to 7.6, while values for orientations similar to those used in the majority of clinical practice are between 1.4 and 5.2. Specialised designs with lead glass side shields or of a wraparound style with angled lenses performed better than lead glasses based on the design of standard spectacles. Results suggest that application of a DRF of 2 would provide a conservative factor that could be applied to personal dosemeter measurements to account for the dose reduction provided by any type of lead glasses provided certain criteria relating to design and consistency of use are applied.

Preclinical feasibility of a technology framework for MRI-guided iliac angioplasty

PURPOSE

Interventional MRI has significant potential for image guidance of iliac angioplasty and related vascular procedures. A technology framework with in-room image display, control, communication and MRI-guided intervention techniques was designed and tested for its potential to provide safe, fast and efficient MRI-guided angioplasty of the iliac arteries.

METHODS

A 1.5-T MRI scanner was adapted for interactive imaging during endovascular procedures using new or modified interventional devices such as guidewires and catheters. A perfused vascular phantom was used for testing. Pre-, intra- and post-procedural visualization and measurement of vascular morphology and flow was implemented. A detailed analysis of X-ray fluoroscopic angiography workflow was conducted and applied. Two interventional radiologists and one physician in training performed 39 procedures. All procedures were timed and analyzed.

RESULTS

MRI-guided iliac angioplasty procedures were successfully performed with progressive adaptation of techniques and workflow. The workflow, setup and protocol enabled a reduction in table time for a dedicated MRI-guided procedure to 6 min 33 s with a mean procedure time of 9 min 2 s, comparable to the mean procedure time of 8 min 42 s for the standard X-ray-guided procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-guided iliac vascular interventions were found to be feasible and practical using this framework and optimized workflow. In particular, the real-time flow analysis was found to be helpful for pre- and post-interventional assessments. Design optimization of the catheters and in vivo experiments are required before clinical evaluation.

Surgeons' exposure to radiation in single- and multi-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; a prospective study

Although minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has widely been developed in patients with lumbar diseases, surgeons risk exposure to fluoroscopic radiation. However, to date, there is no studies quantifying the effective dose during MIS-TLIF procedure, and the radiation dose distribution is still unclear. In this study, the surgeons' radiation doses at 5 places on the bodies were measured and the effective doses were assessed during 31 consecutive 1- to 3-level MIS-TLIF surgeries. The operating surgeon, assisting surgeon, and radiological technologist wore thermoluminescent dosimeter on the unshielded thyroid, chest, genitals, right middle finger, and on the chest beneath a lead apron. The doses at the lens and the effective doses were also calculated. Mean fluoroscopy times were 38.7, 53.1, and 58.5 seconds for 1, 2, or 3 fusion levels, respectively. The operating surgeon's mean exposures at the lens, thyroid, chest, genitals, finger, and the chest beneath the shield, respectively, were 0.07, 0.07, 0.09, 0.14, 0.32, and 0.05 mSv in 1-level MIS-TLIF; 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.18, 0.34, and 0.05 mSv in 2-level; 0.08, 0.09, 0.14, 0.15, 0.36, and 0.06 mSv in 3-level; and 0.07, 0.08, 0.10, 0.15, 0.33, and 0.05 mSv in all cases. Mean dose at the operating surgeon's right finger was significantly higher than other measurements parts (P<0.001). The operating surgeon's effective doses (0.06, 0.06, and 0.07 mSv for 1, 2, and 3 fusion levels) were low, and didn't differ significantly from those of the assisting surgeon or radiological technologist. Revision MIS-TLIF was not associated with higher surgeons' radiation doses compared to primary MIS-TLIF. There were significantly higher surgeons' radiation doses in over-weight than in normal-weight patients. The surgeons' radiation exposure during MIS-TLIF was within the safe level by the International Commission on Radiological Protection's guidelines. The accumulated radiation exposure, especially to surgeon's hands, should be carefully monitored.

Public Health England survey of eye lens doses in the UK medical sector

The ICRP has recently recommended that the occupational exposure limit for the lens of the eye be reduced to 20 mSv in a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv. There has been concern amongst some groups of individuals, particularly interventional cardiologists and radiologists as well as relevant professional bodies, that implementation of these recommendations into UK law will adversely affect working patterns. However, despite a number of informative European studies, there is currently little UK dosimetry data available upon which judgements can effectively be based. In order to address this knowledge gap, Public Health England has carried out a small, targeted survey of UK lens doses to medical staff undertaking procedures likely to involve the highest levels of radiation exposure. Two out of a total of 61 individuals surveyed had projected annual doses which could be close to 20 mSv, measured outside lead glasses. Use of protective equipment was generally good; however, lead glasses were only used by 9 participants. The results of this survey suggest that compliance with the ICRP recommendations is likely to be possible for most individuals in the UK medical sector.

Radiation exposure of the radiologist's eye lens during CT-guided interventions

BACKGROUND

In the past decade the number of computed tomography (CT)-guided procedures performed by interventional radiologists have increased, leading to a significantly higher radiation exposure of the interventionalist's eye lens. Because of growing concern that there is a stochastic effect for the development of lens opacification, eye lens dose reduction for operators and patients should be of maximal interest.

PURPOSE

To determine the interventionalist's equivalent eye lens dose during CT-guided interventions and to relate the results to the maximum of the recommended equivalent dose limit.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

During 89 CT-guided interventions (e.g. biopsies, drainage procedures, etc.) measurements of eye lens' radiation doses were obtained from a dedicated dosimeter system for scattered radiation. The sensor of the personal dosimeter system was clipped onto the side of the lead glasses which was located nearest to the CT gantry. After the procedure, radiation dose (µSv), dose rate (µSv/min) and the total exposure time (s) were recorded.

RESULTS

For all 89 interventions, the median total exposure lens dose was 3.3 µSv (range, 0.03-218.9 µSv) for a median exposure time of 26.2 s (range, 1.1-94.0 s). The median dose rate was 13.9 µSv/min (range, 1.1-335.5 µSv/min).

CONCLUSION

Estimating 50-200 CT-guided interventions per year performed by one interventionalist, the median dose of the eye lens of the interventional radiologist does not exceed the maximum of the ICRP-recommended equivalent eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv per year.

Academic training in radiation safety awareness and practice among Iranian residents/fellows

OBJECTIVE

To determine the current state of radiation safety awareness and practice among Iranian radiology/cardiology residents.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 725 Iranian cardiology/radiology fellows/residents (685 residents and 40 fellows) were studied. Radiation safety awareness and practice were assessed using a 13-item survey questionnaire. Based on academic trainings provided in their medical centres, the subjects were divided into two groups (trained vs untrained).

RESULTS

Trained residents/fellows had better performance compared with untrained ones regarding awareness of radiation dealing instructions, knowing safety experts of their centres (43.8% vs 20.1%, p<0.001) and their contact information (38.4% vs 11.4%, p<0.001), date of the last CBC (complete blood count) checking (15.1% vs 2.5%, p<0.001), use of lead glass (61.6% vs 41.8%, p=0.003), apron (94.5% vs 90%, p=0.016) and radiation shield (71.2% vs 46.2%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness/practice of Iranian cardiology/radiology residents/fellows about radiation exposure safety issues is not acceptable currently. Those who received formal training courses at their academic centres about the safety measures had significantly better knowledge compared with those who did not. It is suggested that radiation safety training be offered at the beginning of residency/fellowship for residents/fellows in a comprehensive and uniform way throughout medical universities.

Use of digital dosemeters for supporting staff radiation safety in paediatric interventional radiology suites

Modern-day interventional radiology (IR) procedures impart a wide range of occupational radiation doses to team members. Unlike thermoluminescent badges, digital dosemeters provide real-time dose readings, making them ideal for identifying different components during IR procedures, which influence staff radiation safety. This study focused solely on paediatric IR (PIR) cases. Digital dosemeters measured the impact of imaging modality, shielding, patient and operator specific factors, on the radiation dose received during various simulated and real live PIR procedures. They recorded potential dose reductions of 10- to 100-fold to each staff member with appropriate use of shielding, choice of imaging method, staff position in the room and complex interplay of other factors. The digital dosemeters were well tolerated by staff. Results highlight some unique radiation safety challenges in PIR that arise from dose increases with magnification use and close proximity of staff to the X-ray beam.

Radiation-induced noncancer risks in interventional cardiology: optimisation of procedures and staff and patient dose reduction

Concerns about ionizing radiation during interventional cardiology have been increased in recent years as a result of rapid growth in interventional procedure volumes and the high radiation doses associated with some procedures. Noncancer radiation risks to cardiologists and medical staff in terms of radiation-induced cataracts and skin injuries for patients appear clear potential consequences of interventional cardiology procedures, while radiation-induced potential risk of developing cardiovascular effects remains less clear. This paper provides an overview of the evidence-based reviews of concerns about noncancer risks of radiation exposure in interventional cardiology. Strategies commonly undertaken to reduce radiation doses to both medical staff and patients during interventional cardiology procedures are discussed; optimisation of interventional cardiology procedures is highlighted.

Assessment of eye and body dose for interventional radiologists, cardiologists, and other interventional staff

A dose limit for the eye of 20 mSv, as proposed by the ICRP, could be exceeded by interventional clinicians. Data on eye dose levels for interventional radiologists and cardiologists provided by medical physicists from hospitals around the UK have been collated. The results indicate that most hospitals would require one or more interventional clinicians to be classified and several would have exceeded a 20 mSv limit. Dose data in the literature have been reviewed to derive factors that might be used to predict eye dose levels based on dose per procedure or kerma-area product workload. These could be used in prior risk assessments to establish monitoring practice. An alternative approach to personnel dose monitoring in radiology applications using a collar dosimeter worn outside the lead apron as the first dosimeter is proposed. The collar dosimeter would provide an assessment of eye dose in terms of Hp(3) and body dose in terms of Hp(10), which could be divided by ten to provide an assessment of effective dose. If Hp(3) exceeded 1 mSv per month, regular monitoring with a head dosimeter would be recommended, and if Hp(10) exceeded 2 mSv per month, then an under-apron dosimeter should also be worn.

Recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology

The radiation dose received by cardiologists during percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology procedures and other interventional cardiology procedures can vary by more than an order of magnitude for the same type of procedure and for similar patient doses. There is particular concern regarding occupational dose to the lens of the eye. This document provides recommendations for occupational radiation protection for physicians and other staff in the interventional suite. Simple methods for reducing or minimizing occupational radiation dose include: minimizing fluoroscopy time and the number of acquired images; using available patient dose reduction technologies; using good imaging-chain geometry; collimating; avoiding high-scatter areas; using protective shielding; using imaging equipment whose performance is controlled through a quality assurance programme; and wearing personal dosimeters so that you know your dose. Effective use of these methods requires both appropriate education and training in radiation protection for all interventional cardiology personnel, and the availability of appropriate protective tools and equipment. Regular review and investigation of personnel monitoring results, accompanied as appropriate by changes in how procedures are performed and equipment used, will ensure continual improvement in the practice of radiation protection in the interventional suite. These recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology and electrophysiology have been endorsed by the Asian Pacific Society of Interventional Cardiology, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

ICRP PUBLICATION 120: Radiological protection in cardiology

Cardiac nuclear medicine, cardiac computed tomography (CT), interventional cardiology procedures, and electrophysiology procedures are increasing in number and account for an important share of patient radiation exposure in medicine. Complex percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiac electrophysiology procedures are associated with high radiation doses. These procedures can result in patient skin doses that are high enough to cause radiation injury and an increased risk of cancer. Treatment of congenital heart disease in children is of particular concern. Additionally, staff(1) in cardiac catheterisation laboratories may receive high doses of radiation if radiological protection tools are not used properly. The Commission provided recommendations for radiological protection during fluoroscopically guided interventions in Publication 85, for radiological protection in CT in Publications 87 and 102, and for training in radiological protection in Publication 113 (ICRP, 2000b,c, 2007a, 2009). This report is focused specifically on cardiology, and brings together information relevant to cardiology from the Commission's published documents. There is emphasis on those imaging procedures and interventions specific to cardiology. The material and recommendations in the current document have been updated to reflect the most recent recommendations of the Commission. This report provides guidance to assist the cardiologist with justification procedures and optimisation of protection in cardiac CT studies, cardiac nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventions. It includes discussions of the biological effects of radiation, principles of radiological protection, protection of staff during fluoroscopically guided interventions, radiological protection training, and establishment of a quality assurance programme for cardiac imaging and intervention. As tissue injury, principally skin injury, is a risk for fluoroscopically guided interventions, particular attention is devoted to clinical examples of radiation-related skin injuries from cardiac interventions, methods to reduce patient radiation dose, training recommendations, and quality assurance programmes for interventional fluoroscopy.

The impact of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography education on radiation exposure to experienced endoscopist: 'trainee effect'

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP), as with other fluoroscopic procedures, carries the risk of exposure of staff to radiation. However, over the last two decades, only a few studies have investigated this risk.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to evaluate the dose of radiation exposure to staff participating in ERCP procedures in a busy teaching hospital that performs more than 1,850 procedures annually.

METHODS

The entire ERCP staff consisted of the experienced endoscopist, the assistant, and two nurses who were responsible for monitoring patients as well as keeping their heads in position during the procedure. RAD DOSE NEB.226 dosimeters, which were provided by the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority, were used for this study.

RESULTS

Data on 110 consecutive therapeutic ERCP procedures was recorded. The mean fluoroscopy time was 5.65 ± 4.71 min. The mean fluoroscopy time of the 61 procedures performed by an experienced endoscopist alone was 5.41 ± 4.65 min, whereas the mean fluoroscopy time for the 49 procedures during which an assistant was involved was 5.94 ± 4.81 min (p = 0.56). In terms of median dose of ionizing radiation exposure to the eyes, the dose measurement per procedure in which the primary endoscopist participated alone was 72 microsievert (μSv), compared to 92 μSv when an assistant took part in theproceedings. Considering that the recommended annual equivalent dose limit to the lens of the eye is 150 mSv, by performing 1,850 procedures annually, the primary endoscopist exceeds this limit.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, taking into consideration the heavy workload in our hospital, it would seem that more experienced endoscopists are required to help provide training in ERCP, and that the use of lead acrylic goggles is required to decrease radiation exposure to the eyes.