Reduction of occupational radiation dose in staff at the cardiac catheterisation laboratory by protective material placed on the patient

Cardiac catheterization real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk of cancer

Cardiac catheterization procedure is the gold standard to diagnose and treat cardiovascular disease. However, radiation safety and cancer risk remain major concerns. This study aimed to real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence and mortality in operators. Coronary angiography (CA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), CA, and others (radiofrequency ablation, pacemaker and defibrillator implantation) procedures with different beam directions, were undertaken on x-ray angiography system. A real-time electronic personal dosimeter (EPD) system was used to measure the radiation dose of staff during all procedures. We followed the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report to estimate the LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality. Primary operators received radiation dose in CA with PCI, CA, and others procedures were 59.33 ± 95.03 μSv, 39.81 ± 103.85 μSv, and 21.92 ± 37.04 μSv, respectively. As to the assistant operators were 30.03 ± 55.67 μSv, 14.67 ± 14.88 μSv, and 4 μSv, respectively. LAR of all cancer incidences for staffs aged from 18 to 65 are varied from 0.40% for males to 1.50% for females. LAR of all cancer mortality for staffs aged from 18 to 65 are varied from 0.22% for males to 0.83% for females. Our study provided an easy, real-time and dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate LAR of cancer for staff during the cardiac catheterization procedures. The LAR for all cancer incidence is about twice that for cancer mortality. Although the radiation doses of staff are lower during each procedure, the increased years of service leads to greater radiation risk to the staff.

Surgeon and staff radiation exposure in minimally invasive spinal surgery: prospective series using a personal dosimeter

OBJECTIVE

The level of radiation awareness by surgeons and residents in spinal surgery does not match the ubiquity of fluoroscopy in operating rooms in the United States. The present method of monitoring radiation exposure may contribute to the current deficiency in radiation awareness. Current dosimeters involve a considerable lag from the time that the surgical team is exposed to radiation to the time that they are provided with that exposure data. The objective of the current study was to assess the feasibility of monitoring radiation exposure in operating room personnel during lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) procedures by using a wearable personal device with real-time feedback.

METHODS

Operating room staff participating in minimally invasive surgical procedures under a single surgeon during a 6-month period were prospectively enrolled in this study. All radiation dose exposures were recorded for each member of the surgical team (surgeon, assistant surgeon, scrub nurse, and circulating nurse) using a personal dosimeter (DoseAware). Radiation doses were recorded in microsieverts (μSv). Comparisons between groups were made using ANOVA with the Tukey post hoc test and Student t-test.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients underwent interbody fusions: 25 underwent LLIF procedures (14 LLIF alone, 11 LLIF with percutaneous screw placement [PSP]) and 14 underwent MI-TLIF. For each operative scenario per spinal level, the surgeon experienced significantly higher (p < 0.035) average radiation exposure (LLIF: 167.9 μSv, LLIF+PSP: 424.2 μSv, MI-TLIF: 397.9 μSv) than other members of the team, followed by the assistant surgeon (LLIF: 149.7 μSv, LLIF+PSP: 242.3 μSv, MI-TLIF: 274.9 μSv). The scrub nurse (LLIF: 15.4 μSv, LLIF+PSP: 125.7 μSv, MI-TLIF: 183.0 μSv) and circulating nurse (LLIF: 1.2 μSv, LLIF+PSP: 9.2 μSv, MI-TLIF: 102.3 μSv) experienced significantly lower exposures. Radiation exposure was not correlated with the patient's body mass index (p ≥ 0.233); however, it was positively correlated with increasing patient age (p ≤ 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time monitoring of radiation exposure is currently feasible and shortens the time between exposure and the availability of information regarding that exposure. A shortened feedback loop that offers more reliable and immediate data would conceivably raise the level of concern for radiation exposure in spinal surgeries and could alter patterns of behavior, leading to decreased exposures. Further studies are ongoing to determine the effect of real-time dosimetry in spinal surgery.

Occupational dose reduction in cardiac catheterisation laboratory: a randomised trial using a shield drape placed on the patient

The aim of this study was to evaluate the occupational radiation dose in interventional cardiology by using a shielding drape on the patient. A random study with and without the protective material was conducted. The following control parameters were registered: demographic data, number of stents, contrast media volume, fluoroscopy time, number of cine images, kerma-area product and cumulative air kerma. Occupational dose data were obtained by electronic active dosemeters. No statistically significant differences in the analysed control parameters were registered. The median dose value received by the interventional cardiologist was 50% lower in the group with a shielding drape with a statistically significant p-value <0.001. In addition, the median value of the maximum scatter radiation dose was 31% lower in this group with a statistically significant p-value <0.001. This study showed that a shielding drape is a useful tool for reducing the occupational radiation dose in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

Ionizing radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: current radiation protection practice of invasive cardiology operators in Lithuania

Ionizing radiation management is among the most important safety issues in interventional cardiology. Multiple radiation protection measures allow the minimization of x-ray exposure during interventional procedures. Our purpose was to assess the utilization and effectiveness of radiation protection and optimization techniques among interventional cardiologists in Lithuania. Interventional cardiologists of five cardiac centres were interviewed by anonymized questionnaire, addressing personal use of protective garments, shielding, table/detector positioning, frame rate (FR), resolution, field of view adjustment and collimation. Effective patient doses were compared between operators who work with and without x-ray optimization. Thirty one (68.9%) out of 45 Lithuanian interventional cardiologists participated in the survey. Protective aprons were universally used, but not the thyroid collars; 35.5% (n  =  11) operators use protective eyewear and 12.9% (n  =  4) wear radio-protective caps; 83.9% (n  =  26) use overhanging shields, 58.1% (n  =  18)-portable barriers; 12.9% (n  =  4)-abdominal patient's shielding; 35.5% (n  =  11) work at a high table position; 87.1% (n  =  27) keep an image intensifier/receiver close to the patient; 58.1% (n  =  18) reduce the fluoroscopy FR; 6.5% (n  =  2) reduce the fluoro image detail resolution; 83.9% (n  =  26) use a 'store fluoro' option; 41.9% (N  =  13) reduce magnification for catheter transit; 51.6% (n  =  16) limit image magnification; and 35.5% (n  =  11) use image collimation. Median effective patient doses were significantly lower with x-ray optimization techniques in both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Many of the ionizing radiation exposure reduction tools and techniques are underused by a considerable proportion of interventional cardiology operators. The application of basic radiation protection tools and techniques effectively reduces ionizing radiation exposure and should be routinely used in practice.