Time to take the gloves off: the use of radiation reduction gloves can greatly increase patient dose

A Tutorial on Diagnostic Benefit and Radiation Risk in Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies

The videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) is a key tool in assessing swallowing function. As with any diagnostic procedure, the probable benefits of the study must be weighed against possible risks. The probable benefit of VFSS is an accurate assessment of swallowing function, enabling patient management decisions potentially leading to improved patient health status and quality of life. A possible (though highly unlikely) risk in VFSS is carcinogenesis, arising from the use of ionizing radiation. Clinicians performing videofluoroscopic swallowing studies should be familiar with both sides of the risk benefit equation in order to determine whether the study is medically justified. The intent of this article is to provide the necessary background for conversations about benefit and risk in videofluoroscopic swallowing studies.

Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations

Use of ionizing radiation during cardiac catheterization interventions adversely impacts both the patients and medical staff. In recent years, radiation dose in cardiac catheterization interventions has become a topic of increasing interest in interventional cardiology and there is a strong interest in reducing radiation exposure during the procedures. This review presents the current status of radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and summarizes a practical approach for radiation dose management for minimizing radiation exposure. This review also presents recent innovations that have clinical potential for reducing radiation during cardiac interventions.

Radiation exposure during angiographic interventions in interventional radiology - risk and fate of advanced procedures

PURPOSE

Advanced angiographic procedures in interventional radiology are becoming more important and are more frequently used, especially in the treatment of several acute life-threatening diseases like stroke or aortic injury. In recent years, technical advancement has led to a broader spectrum of interventions and complex procedures with longer fluoroscopy times. This involves the risk of higher dose exposures, which, in rare cases, may cause deterministic radiation effects, e.g. erythema in patients undergoing angiographic procedures. Against this background, these procedures recently also became subject to national and international regulations regarding radiation protection. At the same time, individual risk assessment of possible stochastic radiation effects for each patient must be weighed up against the anticipated benefits of the therapy itself. Harmful effects of the administered dose are not limited to the patient but can also affect the radiologist and the medical staff. In particular, the development of cataracts in interventionalists is a rising matter of concern. Furthermore, long-term effects of repeated and prolonged x-ray exposure have long been neglected by radiologists but have come into focus in the past years.

CONCLUSIONS

With all this in mind, this review discusses different efforts to reduce radiation exposition levels for patients and medical staff by means of technical, personal as well as organizational measures.

Radiation Concerns for the Neuroanesthesiologists

With the advent of minimally invasive neurosurgical techniques and rapid innovations in the field of neurointervention, there has been a sharp rise in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities requiring radiation exposure. Neuroanesthesiologists are currently involved in various procedures inside as well as outside the operating room (OR) like intensive care units, interventional suites, and gamma knife units. The ambit expands from short-lasting diagnostic scans to lengthy therapeutic procedures performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Hence, a modern-day neuroanesthesiologist has to bear the brunt of the radiation exposure in both inside and outside the OR. However, obliviousness and nonadherence to the relevant radiation safety measures are still prevalent. Radiation protection and safety are topics that need to be discussed with new vigor in the light of current practice.

Perceptions on radioprotective garment usage and underlying reasons for non-adherence among medical radiation workers from public hospitals in a middle-income Asian setting: A qualitative exploration

Background

Radioprotective garments protect medical radiation workers from exposure to radiation at workplace. However, previous studies have found poor adherence to the use of radioprotective garments.

Objectives

We explored the perceptions and practices related to the use of radioprotective garments among medical radiation workers in public hospitals, and sought to understand the reasons for non-adherence.

Design and setting

A qualitative approach was applied by conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with 18 medical radiation workers from three university hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide.

Results

Five themes emerged with respect to perceptions on the use of radioprotective garments: (i) the dilemmas in practising radiation protection, (ii) indication of workers' credibility, (iii) physical appearance of radioprotective garments, (iv) practicality of radioprotective garment use, and (v) impact on workflow. Actual lack of radioprotective garment use was attributed to inadequate number of thyroid shield and other garments, radioprotective garments' unsightly appearance including being dirty and defective, impracticality of using radioprotective garments for some nuclear medicine procedures, disruption of workflow because of workers’ limited movements, attitudes of workers, and organisational influences.

Conclusion

Medical radiation workers demonstrated a definitive practice of using radioprotective aprons, but often neglected to use thyroid shields and other garments. Availability and hygiene are reported as the core issues, while unclear guidelines on practical use of radioprotective garments appear to lead to confusion among medical radiation workers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of its kind from a middle-income Asian setting.

Protecting Surgeons' Fingers from Radiation Exposure during Lumbosacral Selective Nerve Root Block

Introduction

Fluoroscopy-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) is useful for the diagnosis and treatment of nerve root pain. However, the procedure exposes the surgeon's hands to radiation. Therefore, the purpose of this randomized prospective study was to assess the radiation exposure per unit time of the surgeon's fingers during performance of a lumbosacral SNRB and to calculate the annual exposure time limits for four hand-protection methods.

Methods

We prospectively recruited patients scheduled for an SNRB and measured the radiation exposure using a ring-type passive radiation dosimetry device attached to the distal phalanx of the index finger of the hand performing the needle placement. Patients were randomly divided into the following four groups: a) the direct exposure group, b) the 0.03-mmPb glove group, c) the 0.25-mmPb glove group, and d) the forceps group (in which the needle was held using forceps such that the fingers did not enter the irradiation field).

Results

We recruited 40 consecutive patients (16 men and 24 women), with a mean age of 69 years. In all cases, SNRB was successfully performed without complications. The average exposure per hour for each of the four groups was as follows: 0.67 ± 0.56 mSv/s in the direct exposure group, 0.12 ± 0.07 mSv/s in the 0.03-mmPb glove group, 0.019 ± 0.02 mSv/s in the 0.25-mmPb glove group, and 0.001 ± 0.004 mSv/s in the forceps group (p < 0.01). The average annual exposure time limit was 12.4 min in the direct exposure group, 67.9 min in the 0.03-mmPb glove group, 7.5 h in the 0.25-mmPb glove group, and 5.0 days in the forceps group.

Conclusions

Using a radiation reduction glove or forceps greatly decreased the radiation exposure and increased the annual exposure time limit for SNRB.

Is lead shielding of patients necessary during fluoroscopic procedures? A study based on kyphoplasty

OBJECTIVE

To determine the benefits, risks, and limitations associated with wrapping a patient with lead shielding during fluoroscopy-guided kyphoplasty procedures as a way to reduce operator radiation exposure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anthropomorphic phantom was used to mimic a patient undergoing a kyphoplasty procedure under fluoroscopic guidance. Radiation measurements of the air kerma rate (AKR) were made at several locations and under various experimental conditions. First, AKR was measured at various angles along the horizontal plane of the phantom and at varying distances from the phantom, both with and without a lead apron wrapped around the lower portion of the phantom (referred to here as phantom shielding). Second, the effect of an operator's apron was simulated by suspending a lead apron between the phantom and the measurement device. AKR was measured for the four shielding conditions-phantom shielding only, operator apron only, both phantom shielding and operator apron, and no shielding. Third, AKR measurements were made at various heights and with varying C-arm angle.

RESULTS

At all locations, the phantom shielding provided no substantial protection beyond that provided by an operator's own lead apron. Phantom shielding did not reduce AKR at a height comparable to that of an operator's head.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous reports of using patient shielding to reduce operator exposure fail to consider the role of an operator's own lead apron in radiation protection. For an operator wearing appropriate personal lead apparel, patient shielding provides no substantial reduction in operator dose.

Reduction of Fluoroscopy Time and Radiation Dosage During Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Radiofrequency catheter ablation has become the treatment of choice for atrial fibrillation (AF) that does not respond to antiarrhythmic drug therapy. During the procedure, fluoroscopy imaging is still considered essential to visualise catheters in real-time. However, radiation is often ignored by physicians since it is invisible and the long-term risks are underestimated. In this respect, it must be emphasised that radiation exposure has various potentially harmful effects, such as acute skin injury, malignancies and genetic disease, both to patients and physicians. For this reason, every electrophysiologist should be aware of the problem and should learn how to decrease radiation exposure by both changing the setting of the system and using complementary imaging technologies. In this review, we aim to discuss the basics of X-ray exposure and suggest practical instructions for how to reduce radiation dosage during AF ablation procedures.