Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimized interventional radiology laboratories

Influence of Hospital Bed Count on the Positioning of Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology (IR) Nurses: Online Questionnaire Survey of Japanese IR-Specialized Radiological Technologists

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Interventional radiology (IR) utilizing X-rays can lead to occupational radiation exposure, posing health risks for medical personnel in the field. We previously conducted a survey on the occupational radiation exposure of IR nurses in three designated emergency hospitals in Japan. Our findings indicated that a hospital with 214 beds showed a higher lens-equivalent dose than hospitals with 678 and 1182 beds because the distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the IR nurse's position of the hospital with 214 beds was shorter than those of 678 and 1182 beds. Based on these observations, we hypothesized that the number of hospital beds affects the distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the IR nurse's position.

METHODS

To verify this hypothesis, we conducted a more extensive online questionnaire survey, focusing exclusively on hospitals that perform cardiovascular IR.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 78 facilities. The results of this study confirmed our earlier findings, showing that both the number of physicians performing IR procedures and the distance from the X-ray irradiation field to the IR nurse's position are influenced by the number of hospital beds. Additionally, factors such as the type of hospital, emergency medical system, annual number of IR sessions, location of medical equipment, and the positioning of IR nurses appear to be associated with the number of hospital beds.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding these relationships could enable the development of individualized and prioritized radiation exposure reduction measures for IR nurses in high-risk settings, provided that comprehensive occupational radiation risk assessments for cardiovascular IR consider the number of hospital beds and related factors. This study was not registered.

Comparison of radiation-shielding curtains for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography staff

Occupational radiation exposure to the eye lens of medical staff during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) should be kept low so as not to exceed annual dose limits. Dose should be low to avoid tissue reactions and minimizing stochastic effects. It is known that the head and neck of the staff are exposed to more scattered radiation in an over-couch tube system than in a C-arm system (under-couch tube). However, this is only true when radiation-shielding curtains are not used. This study aimed to compare the protection radiation to the occupationally exposed worker between a lead curtain mounted on a C-arm system and an ERCP-specific lead curtain mounted on an over-couch tube system. A phantom study simulating a typical setting for ERCP procedures was conducted, and the scattered radiation dose at four staff positions were measured. It was found that scattered radiation doses were higher in the C-arm with a lead curtain than in the over-couch tube with an ERCP-specific lead curtain at all positions measured in this study. It was concluded that the over-couch tube system with an ERCP-specific lead curtain would reduce the staff eye dose by less than one-third compared to the C-arm system with a lead curtain. For the C-arm system, it is necessary to consider more effective radiation protection measures for the upper body of the staff, such as a ceiling-suspended lead screen or another novel shielding that do not interfere with procedures.

Radiation shielding calculation for interventional radiology: An updated workload survey using a dose monitoring software

Shielding design is an essential aspect of radiation protection. It is necessary to ensure that barriers safeguard workers, patients, the general public, and the environment from the harmful radiation emitted by X-ray machines. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 147 method is widely accepted within the radiation protection experts' (RPEs) community for structural shielding design for medical X-ray imaging facilities. However, these indications are based on data collected in 1996. In recent years, interventional radiology procedures have seen significant developments. Therefore, it is important to evaluate whether updating the data on workload in the different specialities is necessary. We extracted all interventional radiology exposure data parameters from three angiographs from two vendors using dose monitoring software for 3066 procedures and 214,697 individual exposures. The workload distribution as a function of the kVp for five interventional rooms was calculated by summing all exposures and then normalising them by the number of patients. Analysing this data, we obtained new transmission curves through lead, concrete and gypsum wallboard, finding the parameters (α, β, and γ) in the Archer equation for the secondary radiation. Finally, our aim was to share an example of shielding calculations for haemodynamics and neuroangiography rooms to illustrate the impact of updated transmission data.

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.

Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study

With the International Commission on Radiological Protection's (ICRP) reduction in the radiation dose threshold for cataracts, evaluating and preventing radiation exposure to the lens of the eye among interventional radiology (IR) staff have become urgent tasks. In this study, we focused on differences in lens-equivalent dose (HT Lens) to which IR nurses in three hospitals were exposed and aimed to identify factors underlying these differences. According to analyses of time-, distance-, and shielding-related factors, the magnitude of the HT Lens dose to which IR nurses were exposed could be explained not by time or shielding but by the distance between the X-ray exposure field and the location of the IR nurse. This distance tended to be shorter in hospitals with fewer staff. The most effective means of reducing the exposure of the lenses of IR nurses' eyes to radiation is to position them at least two meters from the radiation source during angiography procedures. However, some hospitals must provide IR departments with comparatively few staff. In work environments where it is infeasible to reduce exposure by increasing distance, interventions to reduce time by managing working practices and investment in shielding equipment are also important. This study was not registered.

An In-depth Analysis of the Adverse Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Cardiac Catheterization Staffs

Diagnostic and interventional angiograms are instrumental in the multidisciplinary approach to CAD management, enabling accurate diagnosis and effective targeted treatments that significantly enhance patient care and cardiovascular outcomes. However, cath lab staff, including interventional cardiologists, is consistently exposed to ionizing radiation, which poses inherent health risks. Radiation exposure in the cath lab primarily results from the use of fluoroscopy and cineangiography during diagnostic and interventional procedures. Understanding these risks and implementing effective radiation protection measurements are imperative to ensure the well-being of healthcare professionals while delivering high-quality cardiac care. Prolonged and repeated exposure can lead to both deterministic and stochastic effects. Deterministic effects, such as skin erythema and tissue damage, are more likely to occur at high radiation doses. Interventional cardiologists and staff may experience these effects when safety measures are not rigorously followed. In fact, while ionizing radiation is essential in the practice of radiation cardiology ward, cath lab staff faces inherent risks from radiation exposure. Stochastic effects, on the other hand, are characterized by a probabilistic relationship between radiation exposure and the likelihood of harm. These effects include the increased risk of cancer, particularly for those with long-term exposure. Interventional cardiologists, due to their frequent presence in the cath lab, face a higher lifetime cumulative radiation dose, potentially elevating their cancer risk. Protective measures, including the use of lead aprons, thyroid shields, and radiation monitoring devices, play a crucial role in reducing radiation exposure for cath lab personnel. Adherence to strict dose optimization protocols, such as minimizing fluoroscopy time and maximizing distance from the radiation source, is also essential in mitigating these risks. Ongoing research and advancements in radiation safety technology are essential in further for minimizing the adverse effects of ionizing radiation in the cath lab.

Fundamental study on diagnostic reference level quantities for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a C-arm fluoroscopy system

The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is an effective tool for optimising protection in medical exposures to patients. However regarding air kerma at the patient entrance reference point (Ka,r), one of the DRL quantities for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), manufacturers use a variety of the International Electrotechnical Commission and their own specific definitions of the reference point. The research question for this study was whetherKa,ris appropriate as a DRL quantity for ERCP. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference betweenKa,rand air kerma incident on the patient's skin surface (Ka,e) at the different height of the patient couch for a C-arm system. Fluoroscopy and radiography were performed using a C-arm system (Ultimax-i, Canon Medical Systems, Japan) and a over-couch tube system (CUREVISTA Open, Fujifilm Healthcare, Japan).Ka,ewas measured by an ion chamber placed on the entrance surface of the phantom. Kerma-area product (PKA) andKa,rwere measured by a built-inPKAmeter and displayed on the fluoroscopy system.Ka,edecreased whileKa,rincreased as the patient couch moved away from the focal spot. The uncertainty of theKa,e/Ka,rratio due to the different height of the patient couch was estimated to be 75%-94%.Ka,rmay not accurately representKa,e.PKAwas a robust DRL quantity that was independent of the patient couch height. We cautioned against optimising patient doses in ERCP with DRLs set in terms ofKa,rwithout considering the patient couch height of the C-arm system. Therefore, we recommend thatKa,ris an inappropriate DRL quantity in ERCP using the C-arm system.

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

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

Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Conventional and Wide-Field High-Resolution Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Cerebral Angiography: A Phantom Study

There has been an increase in the use of interventional neuroradiology procedures because of their non-invasiveness compared to surgeries and the improved image quality of fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and rotational angiography. Although cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are inferior to multi-detector CT images in terms of low-contrast detectability and lower radiation doses, CBCT scans are frequently performed because of their accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of two different high-resolution CBCTs (HR CBCT): conventional (C-HR CBCT) and wide-field HR CBCT (W-HR CBCT). The modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used to evaluate the image quality. On comparing the MTF of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and that of W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix, the MTF of W-HR CBCT with the 384 × 384 matrix was larger. A comparison of the NPS and CNR of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix showed that both values were comparable. The reference air kerma values were equal for C-HR CBCT and W-HR CBCT; however, the value of the kerma area product was 1.44 times higher for W-HR CBCT compared to C-HR CBCT. The W-HR CBCT allowed for improved spatial resolution while maintaining the image noise and low-contrast detectability by changing the number of image matrices from 256 × 256 to 384 × 384. Our study revealed the image characteristics and radiation dose of W-HR CBCT. Given its advantages of low-contrast detectability and wide-area imaging with high spatial resolution, W-HR CBCT may be useful in interventional neuroradiology for acute ischemic stroke.

Spatial Scattering Radiation to the Radiological Technologist during Medical Mobile Radiography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report of AAPM Task Group 272: Comprehensive acceptance testing and evaluation of fluoroscopy imaging systems

Modern fluoroscopes used for image guidance have become quite complex. Adding to this complexity are the many regulatory and accreditation requirements that must be fulfilled during acceptance testing of a new unit. Further, some of these acceptance tests have pass/fail criteria, while others do not, making acceptance testing a subjective and time consuming task. The AAPM Task Group 272 Report spells out the details of tests that are required and gives visibility to some of the tests that while not yet required, are recommended as good practice. The organization of the report begins with the most complicated fluoroscopes used in interventional radiology or cardiology, continues with general fluoroscopy and mobile C-arms. Finally, the Appendices of the report provide useful information, an example report form and topics that needed their own section due to the level of detail. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology

There has been a rapid development in the field of interventional radiology over recent years, and this has led to a rapid increase in the number of interventional radiology procedures being performed. There is, however, a growing concern regarding radiation exposure to the patients and the operators during these procedures. In this article, we review the basics of radiation exposure, radiation protection techniques, radiation protection tools available to interventional radiologists, and radiation protection during pregnancy.

Monitoring and Protection against Radiation Dose to Eyes of Operators Performing Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Nationwide Study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To meet the new standard of the annual dose limit for the eye lens recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection, radiation doses of neuroendovascular procedures in Japanese institutions were investigated.

METHODS

Radiation doses to operators involved in 304 neuroendovascular procedures at 30 Japanese institutions were prospectively surveyed. The institutions recruited at an annual meeting of the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy participated voluntarily. A maximum of 10 wireless dosimeters were attached to the radiation protection (RP) goggles, the ceiling-mounted RP shielding screen, and the operators' forehead and neck over the protective clothing. Doses recorded inside the goggles were defined as eye lens doses for operators who wore RP goggles, while doses to the forehead were defined as eye lens doses for those who did not. The shielding effect rates of the protection devices were calculated, and statistical analysis was performed for the comparison of radiation doses.

RESULTS

From 296 analyzed cases, mean eye lens radiation doses per procedure were 0.088 mGy for the left eye and 0.041 mGy for the right eye. For the left eye, that dose without RP equipment was 0.176 mGy and that with RP goggles plus an RP shielding screen was 0.034 mGy. Four parameters, including left eye dose, air kerma at the patient entrance reference point, fluoroscopic time, and the total number of frames, were assessed for five types of neurovascular procedures. Of them, transarterial embolization for dural arteriovenous fistula was associated with the highest eye lens dose at 0.138 mGy. The shielding effect rates of protection goggles were 60% for the left and 55% for the right RP goggle. The mean doses to the inner and outer surfaces of the RP shielding screen were 0.831 mGy and 0.040 mGy, respectively, amounting to a shielding effect rate of 95%.

CONCLUSION

To meet the new standard, both RP goggles and RP shielding screens are strongly recommended to be used effectively. Without proper use of radiological protection devices, the number of neuroendovascular procedures that one operator performs per year will be limited under the new guideline.

Eye protection in interventional procedures

Data suggest that radiation-induced cataracts may form without a threshold and at low-radiation doses. Staff involved in interventional radiology and cardiology fluoroscopy-guided procedures have the potential to be exposed to radiation levels that may lead to eye lens injury and the occurrence of opacifications have been reported. Estimates of lens dose for various fluoroscopy procedures and predicted annual dosages have been provided in numerous publications. Available tools for eye lens radiation protection include accessory shields, drapes and glasses. While some tools are valuable, others provide limited protection to the eye. Reducing patient radiation dose will also reduce occupational exposure. Significant variability in reported dose measurements indicate dose levels are highly dependent on individual actions and exposure reduction is possible. Further follow-up studies of staff lens opacification are recommended along with eye lens dose measurements under current clinical practice conditions.

Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.

A 5-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF IONIZING RADIATION DOSE TO HYBRID OPERATING ROOM PERSONNEL IN SAUDI ARABIA

The annual average effective dose (ED) for operating room personnel (ORP) in Saudi Arabia was estimated from the period of 2015-2019 using thermoluminescent dosemeters. A retrospective analysis was conducted on annual EDs for 7530 ORP working across 52 hospitals. These workers were only exposed to radiation in the operating room. The annual average ED over the period of 5 years was found to be 0.59 mSv with no incidence of a dose above the annual dose limit of 20 mSv. The maximum annual ED reported was 15 mSv for an operating room worker in 2019. More than 88% of the workers received an annual ED of <1 mSv. The study concluded that the work environment in hybrid operating rooms across Saudi Arabia is safe. However, it is always recommended that workers take every protective measure when dealing with ionization radiation.

Managing occupational doses with smartphones in interventional radiology

Purpose

This study presents a prototype smartphone application for occupational dosimetry in interventional practices based on electronic personal dosimeters to assist in dose monitoring.

Methods

The prototype receives and records information from the occupational dose report containing the cumulative dose of electronic personal dosimeters worn over the apron at chest level and electronic area dosimeters located on C‐arms (reference dosimeters), for each fluoroscopy‐guided procedure. Using their smartphones, personnel involved in interventional practices can review and compare their occupational records with an investigation level, the dose limits, and their department colleagues (anonymously). The ratio between H_p(10) measured by the personal and the reference dosimeters at the C‐arm is presented as an indicator of consistent use of suspended operator shield. Some general results extracted from the first months of use are presented.

Results

The reference dosimeter located at the C‐arm (without lead protection and acting as an ambient dosimeter) recorded in one of the laboratories 217 mSv during 308 procedures over 5 months, showing an indication of the radiation risk present in an interventional laboratory. The ratio between the personal cumulative dose and the dose at a reference C‐arm dosimeter ranged from 0.2% to 1.67% (a factor of 8.5) for different interventionalists. These differences suggest different protection habits among interventional operators, as well as a target for dose reduction.

Conclusions

With this system, professionals have easy access to their occupational dosimetry records (including information on the workload) in the setting of their interventional departments, to thereby actively engage in the protection process.

[The Effect of Radiation Protection Education for the Operators' Ocular Lens in Cardiac Catheterization]

The purpose of this study was to educate operators regarding cardiac catheterization using radiation protection slides prepared for this study and to consider whether or not this radiation protection education contributes to reducing the exposure of the operator's ocular lens. Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) was installed at the outside left, inside left, outside right, and inside right of the X-ray protective eyewear of the operators performing the cardiac catheterization. The exposure dose rate before and after radiation protection education for 3 operators performing cardiac catheterization was compared. The exposure dose ratio was defined by dividing the TLD measurement value, which is the air kerma calculated by the X-ray diagnosis apparatus for the angiography. In other words, this can calculate the ratio of how much the operators are exposed to radiation from the dose of the patient per examination. When comparing the radiation dose ratio obtained from the dosimeter installed on the right outer side before and after education, p-value was <0.05 in the left anterior oblique-cranial and right anterior oblique- cranial, and a significant difference was recognized. The radiation protection education carried out in this study contributes to a reduction in the exposure dose of the operators.

Are X-ray Safety Glasses Alone Enough for Adequate Ocular Protection in Complex Radiological Interventions?

ABSTRACT

The maximum annual radiation ocular dose limit for medical staff has been reduced to 20 mSv in the current European directive 2013/59/Euratom. This multi-centric study aims at reporting the protected and unprotected eye lens doses in different fluoroscopically guided interventions and to evaluate any other factors that could influence the ocular dose. From July 2018 to July 2019, ocular radiation doses of six interventionists of four departments during complex interventions were recorded with a thermoluminescent dosimeter in front of and behind radiation protection glasses to measure the protected and unprotected doses. The position of personnel, intervention type, fluoroscopy time, total body dose and use of pre-installed protection devices like lead acrylic shields were also systematically recorded. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the doses at 2 y and 5 y. The annual unprotected/protected ocular doses of six interventionists were 67/21, 32.7/3.3, 27.4/5.1, 7/0, 21.8/2.2, and 0/0 mSv, respectively. The unprotected dose crossed the 20-mSv annual limits for four interventionists and protected dose for one less experienced interventionist. The estimated 5-y protected ocular dose of this interventionist was 101.318 mSv (95%CI 96.066-106.57), also crossing the 5-y limit. The use of a lead acrylic shield was observed to have a significant effect in reducing ocular doses. The annual unprotected and protected ocular doses for interventionists dealing with complex interventions could cross the present permitted yearly limit. The measurement of significant protected ocular dose behind the radiation protection glasses emphasizes the additional indispensable role of pre-installed radiation protection devices and training in reducing radiation doses for complex procedures.

ASSESSMENT OF WHOLE BODY, SKIN AND EYE LENS DOSES OF THE INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS AT SELECTED HOSPITALS IN IRAN

High radiation doses to the body may lead to the stochastic/deterministic effects of ionizing radiation on the critical organs as well as causing the cataract in eye lens of the clinical staff in interventional radiology. In this study, the received doses of the eyes, skin and whole body of 38 clinical staff including physicians, residents, nurses and radiotechnologists in cardiac angiography departments in three selected hospitals were assessed using personal dosemeters during two bimonthly dosimetry periods. Moreover, the correlation coefficients among the measured dose components including eye lens dose, skin dose and whole body dose equivalent in both area of under and over their lead-apron were calculated for all these occupational groups. The results show that the occupational annual dose values of the clinical staff are below the annual dose limits recommended by International Commission on Radiation Protection. Furthermore, among the measured dose components, the highest correlation coefficient value was obtained between the eye lens dose and personal dose equivalent measured over the lead apron for all the occupational groups.

Percutaneous structural cardiology: are anaesthesiologists properly protected from ionising radiation?

During transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) and other percutaneous structural procedures, some patients may need close anesthesiological care, thus exposing the anaesthesiologist to x-rays. This work aims to investigate the radiation dose received by anaesthesiologists during these specific procedures in order to improve their radiological protection. Occupational radiation doses were measured prospectively during percutaneous structural procedures in several health professionals using electronic dosimeters worn over the apron at chest level. A sample of 49 procedures were recorded, where the anaesthesiologists' average dose per procedure resulted 13 times higher than that of interventional cardiologists. The average dose per procedure received over the protection apron during TAVIs by the anaesthesiologist was 0.13 mSv, with a maximum value of 0.69 mSv. Taking these figures as a conservative estimation of the eye lens dose, an anaesthesiologist could participate in around 150 procedures before reaching the regulatory annual dose limit for the lens of the eye in Europe (20 mSv). In those clinical procedures where patients need close anesthesiological care, the anaesthesiologists might receive high radiation doses increasing the risk for cataracts and the risk of stochastic radiation effects. The proper use of occupational dosimeters will help identify these situations. It is recommended to use a mobile shielding barrier to reduce radiation exposure to acceptable levels in these situations.

Development of Neuromonitoring Pedicle Screw - Results of Electrical Resistance and Neurophysiologic Test in Pig Model

Objective

To analyze the electrical resistance of a newly developed neuromonitoring pedicle screw (Neuro-PS) and to verify the electrophysiologic properties of the Neuro-PS in a pig model.

Methods

We developed 2 types of the Neuro-PS in which a gold lead was located internally (type I) and externally (type II). We measured the electrical resistance of the Neuro-PS and the conventional screw and analyzed the electrical thresholds of triggered EMG (t-EMG) of each screw by intentionally penetrating the medial pedicle wall and contacting the exiting nerve root in a pig model.

Results

The electrical resistances of the Neuro-PS were remarkably lower than that of the conventional screw. In electrophysiologic testing, only the type II Neuro-PS under the leadnerve contact condition showed a significantly lower stimulation threshold as compared to the conventional screw.

Conclusion

The Neuro-PS demonstrated lower electrical resistances than the conventional screw. The type II Neuro-PS under the lead-nerve contact condition showed a significantly lower stimulation threshold compared to that of the other screws in the t-EMG test.

Evaluation of calibration factor of OSLD toward eye lens exposure dose measurement of medical staff during IVR

The eye lens is a sensitive organ of which an x‐ray exposure dose should be managed during interventional radiology (IVR). In the actual situations, the eye lens is exposed to scattered x‐rays; they have different from the standard x‐ray energies which are used for general dose calibration of the dosimeter. To perform precise dose measurement, the energy dependence of the dosimeter should be properly accounted for when calibrating the dosimeter. The vendor supplies a calibration factor using 80‐kV diagnostic x‐rays under a free‐air condition. However, whether it is possible to use this calibration factor to evaluate the air kerma during the evaluation of the eye lens dose is unclear. In this paper, we aim to precisely determine calibration factors, and also examine the possible application of using a vendor‐supplied calibration factor. First, the x‐ray spectrum at the eye lens position during fluoroscopy was measured with a CdTe x‐ray spectrometer. We mimicked transfemoral cardiac catheterization using a human‐type phantom. Second, we evaluated the doses and calibration factors at three dosimetric points: front and back of protective goggles, and the front of the head (eye lens position). We used the measured x‐ray spectrum to determine the incident photon distribution in the eye lens regions, and x‐ray spectra corresponding to the dosimetric points around the eye lens were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation. Although the calibration factors varied with dosimetric positions, we found that the factors obtained were similar to the vendor‐supplied calibration factor. Furthermore, based on the experiment, we propose a practical way to calibrate an OSL dosimeter in an actual clinical situation. A person evaluating doses can use a vendor‐supplied calibration factor without any corrections for energy dependences, only when they add a systematic uncertainty of 5%. This evidence will strongly support actual exposure dose measurement during a clinical study.

Rogue cell-like chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes of interventional radiologists: A case study

We report two cases of interventional radiologists who had been exposed to radiation while performing fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures (FGIPs), mainly transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, percutaneous catheter drainage, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage procedures, for over 10 years. They had a unique multi-aberrant cell type with not only high numbers of dicentrics and/or centric rings but also excess acentric double minutes, similar to a rogue cell. As revealed in a self-administered questionnaire, they wore personal dosimeters and protective equipment at all times and used shielding devices during interventional fluoroscopy procedures. However, the exposed dose levels derived from cytogenetic dosimetry were much higher than the doses recorded on their personal dosimeters. A large number of unstable and stable chromosomal aberrations that were found in the peripheral blood lymphocytes of these interventional radiologists might be due to repeated and long-term exposure to ionizing radiation while performing FGIPs. Further investigations of chromosomal aberrations in interventional radiologists may improve the understanding of the long-term effects of radiation exposure on medical personnel.

A randomized comparison of estimated radiation exposure between Low and conventional dose protocol during invasive coronary angiography (ERICA trial): Pilot study

PURPOSE

Radiation exposure during coronary angiography is potentially harmful to patients and operators. However, there are limited data on the effects of a low-dose radiation angiography. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a reduced radiation dose protocol during invasive coronary angiography.

METHODS

One hundred three consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography were enrolled and randomized to low- or conventional dose protocols (LDP versus CDP). The LDP consists of 10 frames per second during fluoroscopy and half the radiation dose of CDP during cineangiography. Image quality was assessed using a Likert rating scale by an independent radiologist. The radiation dose was estimated with dose-area product (DAP) and air-kerma (AK).

RESULTS

Body weight and waist circumference are well correlated with the level of DAP and AK. Exposure time and total images and frame counts in cineangiography were similar in both groups. There was a marked reduction of the estimated radiation dose (DAP and AK) in the LDP group compared to the CDP group without significant compromise in image quality (total DAP: LDP 1980.1 ± 1163.7 vs. CDP 3434.2 ± 2188.1 μGym² p = 0.001; total AK: 279.6 ± 159.3 vs. 493.8 ± 280.6 mGy, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The LDP reduced the total estimated radiation dose compared to the CDP without a significant loss of diagnostic information. A LDP may be a viable strategy to protect patients and medical staff from the hazards of radiation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Eye Lens Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology: Assessment With Dedicated Hp(3) Dosimeters

PURPOSE

To quantify eye lens dose in interventional radiology and assess whether neck dosimeter is a good surrogate to evaluate eye lens dosimetry.

METHODS

Radiation exposure was prospectively measured in 9 interventional radiologists between May and October 2017. Standard Hp(0,07) thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were worn at the neck outside the lead apron, and 2 dedicated eye lens Hp(3) TLDs were placed just above the eyes, one midline and another at the outer edge of the left eye. Correlations between eye lens and neck TLD doses were assessed with Pearson coefficient, and linear regression was used to predict eye lens dose from neck TLD values.

RESULTS

Eye lens dose without eye protection was 0.18 ± 0.11 (mean ± standard deviation; 0.08-0.41) mSv per workday and 35.3 ± 6.6 mSv (16.3-82.9) annually (200 workdays/year). Five (56%) radiologists exceeded the 20 mSv annual eye lens dose limit. Eye lens doses from left and central TLDs were 12.46 ± 3.02 and 9.29 ± 3.38 mSv, respectively (P = .027). Mean eye lens (left and central) and neck TLD doses were 10.87 ± 2.67 and 16.56 ± 5.67 mSv, respectively (P = .008). Pearson correlation coefficient between both eye lens TLD and between mean eye lens TLD and neck TLD doses were 0.91 and 0.92, respectively. Average of eye lens dose was 0.0179 + (0.5971 × neck dose).

CONCLUSION

Full-time interventional radiologists are likely to suffer from deterministic radiation effects to the eye lens, especially on the left side. Neck TLD significantly overestimates eye lens dose. However, eye lens doses are highly correlated with neck doses and may be predicted from the neck TLD values.

[Examination of Effectiveness Verification and Additional Items in Angiography and IVR of DRLs 2015]

Japanese Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) were released as "Japan DRLs 2015" from Japan Network for Research and Information on Medical Exposure (J-RIME) in June 2015. In "Japan DRLs 2015", DRLs in angiography and interventional procedures are set at a fluoroscopic dose rate of 20 mGy/min at the interventional reference point using a phantom. In order to achieve optimization with DRLs, then it need to be revised regularly. Therefore, we (research group to examine the effect of Japan DRLs 2015 and the necessity of additional items in angiography and vascular interventions) examined the effects of "Japan DRLs 2015" on angiography and interventional procedures. And we also investigated for DRLs revision in the future. As a result, it turned out that it is important to create DRLs in medical procedures that can be effectively used in clinical settings.

Demonstrating Compliance With Proposed Reduced Lens of Eye Dose Limits in Nuclear Medicine Settings

Based on ongoing research on ionizing radiation thresholds for cataracts, the International Commission on Radiological Protection has proposed new guidelines lowering the annual occupational lens of eye dose limit from 150 mSv to 20 mSv. The International Atomic Energy Agency has operationalized these new guidelines. Subsequently, national/regional radiation protection regulators are reviewing their lens of eye dose limits with an aim of moving towards the proposed new limits, resulting in licensees having to demonstrate compliance. In health care settings, fluoroscopic interventional practices generally have higher lens of eye doses and nuclear medicine settings generally have lower doses. A prospective cohort (n = 19) of nuclear medicine technologists wore dedicated lens of eye dosimeters for a 3 mo period synchronized with their body dosimeter schedules. The lens of eye dosimeters were validated to have a linear response in the anticipated dose ranges. The participants worked in a relatively high-volume nuclear medicine practice, which included general and cardiac, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, radiopharmacy, and cyclotron operations. The annualized dose ranges were 0.0-3.68 mSv (lens of eye) and 0.48-4.72 mSv (whole body). There was a good correlation between lens of eye and body dosimeter readings (R = 0.67). There were no significant differences in lens of eye dose by work type, worker sex, or side on which the dosimeter was worn. The findings should be generalizable to other similar practices, especially in North America, and should be sufficient to demonstrate regulatory compliance in nuclear medicine settings with the proposed new lens of eye dose limits.

PERFORMANCE OF THE INSTADOSETM DOSEMETER FOR INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY AND CARDIOLOGY APPLICATION

The aim of this article was to verify the performance of the Mirion InstadoseTM dosemeter under clinical conditions and to compare its response in typical X-ray fields used during interventional and cardiology procedures with the TLD-100, usually used for radiation dosimetry. It was also objective of this study to verify the feasibility of using the InstadoseTM dosemeter response at the chest level for estimation of occupational eye lens dose in cardiology and interventional radiology. Initially the response of the dosemeter was tested using continuous X-ray beams and the results showed that the Instadose dosemeter present a satisfactory behavior of the most important dosimetric properties based on the tests as described in the IEC 62387 standard. The measurements performed in clinical conditions showed that the InstadoseTM dosemeter response was comparable to that of TL dosemeters used in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures and there is a correlation between the eye lens doses and the chest doses measured with the InstadoseTM. Based on the results obtained, we recommend the use of the InstadoseTM dosemeter for purposes of occupational whole-body monitoring of medical staff in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures.

Reduction of Operator Hand Exposure in Interventional Radiology With a Novel Finger Sack Using Tungsten-containing Rubber

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the x-ray shielding ability of a novel tungsten-particle-containing rubber-based finger sack for use in interventional radiology. Shielding rates for the air kerma (mGy m) were measured using a semiconductor dosimeter with and without the finger sack and commercial lead gloves, at a 20 cm distance from the field of view. A C-arm digital angiography system was used with x-ray tube voltages of 60, 80, 100, and 120 kVp. In addition, the 70 μm dose equivalent to the operator's finger was measured using fluorescent glass dosimeters with and without the finger sack during interventional radiology examinations. The x-ray shielding rates for 60, 80, 100, and 120 kV x rays were 98.0 ± 0.03%, 94.8 ± 0.05%, 92.3 ± 0.12%, and 90.1 ± 0.03%, respectively, with the finger sack and 69.8 ± 0.39%, 61.0 ± 0.53%, 52.3 ± 0.52%, and 47.0 ± 0.69% with the lead gloves. The x-ray shielding rates for the fluoroscopy and cine mode with the finger sack were 91.3 ± 0.21% and 56.5 ± 0.58%, respectively, while with the lead gloves they were 96.5 ± 0.04% and 67.6 ± 0.33%. The 70 μm dose equivalent for the operator's finger exposure dose was reduced by approximately 39.4% using the finger sack. The finger shields were more user friendly, had excellent radiation shielding ability against x rays, and should reduce finger exposure in interventional radiology.

Cataract risk of neuro-interventional procedures: a nationwide population-based matched-cohort study

AIM

To demonstrate the risk of cataract associated with radiation exposure from neuro-interventional procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a nationwide population-based, matched-cohort study. The exposed group (group E) comprised patients diagnosed with an aneurysm, cerebrovascular system anomaly, or subarachnoid haemorrhage who underwent a neuro-interventional procedure, such as brain digital subtraction angiography or endovascular embolisation. The comparison group (group C) included subjects who were never exposed to radiation from neuro-interventional procedures and were propensity score-matched by the date of enrolment, age, sex, and associated comorbidities. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of cataract risk due to radiation exposure while adjusting for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

There were 838 patients and 3,352 matched subjects in groups E and C, respectively. The incidence of cataracts was significantly greater among subjects in group E (adjusted HR [aHR] = 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08-3.26), especially those aged >40 years (aHR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.16-3.94). The number of computed tomography examinations was positively correlated, but not statistically significant, with an increased risk of cataract occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuro-interventional procedures might be significantly associated with an increased risk of cataract occurrence.

Minimizing Medical Radiation Exposure by Incorporating a New Radiation "Vital Sign" into the Electronic Medical Record: Quality of Care and Patient Safety

There is a clearly perceived and imminent need to decrease unnecessary and detrimental exposure to medical ionizing radiation. We propose a new radiation "vital sign" that incorporates cumulative radiation exposure to create a risk score on the basis of an individualized assessment of potential harm from additional exposure to medical radiation. We propose to then tie the risk score to real-time, evidence-based, clinical decision support for procedures that use ionizing radiation. Additionally, we offer recommendations that minimize unnecessary or low-yield uses. Preference is given to approaches and modalities that use less or no ionizing radiation and that are medically appropriate, acceptable to, and safer for patients.

Track, calculate and optimise eye lens doses of interventional cardiologists using mEyeDose and mEyeDose_X

The European epidemiological study EURALOC aimed to establish a dose response relationship for low dose radiation induced eye lens opacities using interventional cardiologists as the study group. Within the EURALOC project, two dosimetry methodologies were developed serving as the basis for cumulative eye lens dose assessment. Besides being the cornerstone of the epidemiological part of the project, these dosimetry methodologies were also used to develop two calculation tools, 'mEyeDose' and 'mEyeDose_X' which enable to track, calculate, optimise and analyse eye lens doses in interventional cardiology. mEyeDose was developed as a Mobile Web App and serves as a readily accessible, highly didactic educational tool for interventional cardiologists whereas the user-friendly desktop application mEyeDose_X is designed for radiation protection professionals. Both tools are freely available and can be used for a wide range of purposes such as optimisation of working practices, calculation of cumulative eye lens doses or risk assessment prior to routine eye lens dose monitoring.

The Eyes Have It

The ocular lens is one of the most susceptible structures in the body to radiation damage. Unfortunately, much of the traditional academic and regulatory thinking on thresholds to develop radiation-induced opacities or cataracts has proven to be false. Individual vulnerability to the effects of radiation is extremely variable, largely because each individual is variably genetically equipped to repair the damage caused by radiation. Therefore many people, including some unsuspecting interventional radiologists may have no, or almost no, threshold at all for cataract development after radiation injury. For most others, if there is a threshold it is a fraction of what was previously thought. These new data have become apparent during the same time period when unprecedented numbers of physicians and medical staff have been exposed to unprecedented doses of scatter radiation as the number and complexity of fluoroscopic guided procedures has exploded. Increased rates of radiation lens damage have already been documented in physicians and support staff working in interventional medicine. As there is a latency period of years to decades for lens injury to fully evolve it is quite possible the true incidence will not be known for some time. Strategies to minimize the potential risks encountered in interventional medicine include radiation safety best practices, passive and personal barrier protection, and philosophical approach to interventional radiology practice. Ignore this article at your peril.

Health Effects from Occupational Radiation Exposure among Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventional Medical Workers: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to provide an overview of the health effects of occupational radiation exposure from interventional fluoroscopy procedures on medical radiation workers. Among the 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, most studies were cross-sectional (76%) and published after 2011 (65%) in a handful of countries. Although diverse outcomes were reported, most studies focused on cataracts. Radiation health effects were rarely assessed by risk per unit dose. Interventional radiation medical workers represent a small subset of the population studied worldwide. Further epidemiologic studies should be conducted to evaluate health outcomes among interventional radiation medical workers.

A COMPARISON OF OCCUPATIONAL DOSES IN CONVENTIONAL AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY IN IRAN

Occupational exposures in conventional and interventional radiology were investigated over a period of 10 years for all radiation workers. The statistical analysis carried out on the refined data showed that the average annual effective doses in conventional and interventional radiology were 0.28 and 0.59 mSv for measurably exposed workers and 0.18 and 0.52 mSv for all monitored workers in 2014. More than 99.9 and 82.8% of radiation workers in conventional and interventional radiology received annual doses less than the public dose limit (1 mSv) in 2014. Comparing the occupational dose levels of different countries (including Iran) in conventional as well as interventional radiology showed a poor comparability among them. Regarding the doses above the investigation level, the analysis showed that majority of them were due to improper use of personal dosimeters (false doses) and only 0.01 and 0.12% of the dose records actually crossed the level in conventional and interventional radiology in 2014.

A Useful Gadget to Reduce the Radiation Dose of Interventionist's Hands

Increased demand for interventional radiology techniques has interventionists performing a large number of these procedures. Measurements and calculations have shown that the radiation doses received by these specialists can exceed the threshold of radiation-induced deterministic effects unless radiation protection procedures and devices are used. Proper usage of radiation protection devices can protect them from radiation-induced effects, even with a high workload. Occupational radiation protection entails proper training of interventionists to increase their awareness about available appropriate protection tools and equipment, and devices that can be used to minimize exposure, such as needle holders, tubing extensions, and injectors. This study introduces a device that can be used to fix the catheter to prevent the physician from holding the catheter by hand. The authors, also, discuss the importance of radiation protection training along with the training on new medical equipment, which can be applied to reduce the radiation dose.

Radiation hazards to vascular surgeon and scrub nurse in mobile fluoroscopy equipped hybrid vascular room

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to identify the radiation hazards to vascular surgeons and scrub nurses working in mobile fluoroscopy equipped hybrid vascular operation rooms; additionally, to estimate cumulative cancer risk due to certain exposure dosages.

METHODS

The study was conducted prospectively in 71 patients (53 men and 18 women) who had undergone vascular intervention at our hybrid vascular theater for 6 months. OEC 9900 fluoroscopy was used as mobile C-arm. Exposure dose (ED) was measured by attaching optically stimulated luminescence at in and outside of the radiation protectors. To measure X-ray scatter with the anthropomorphic phantom model, the dose was measured at 3 distances (20, 50, 100 cm) and 3 angles (horizontal, upward 45°, downward 45°) using a personal gamma radiation dosimeter, Ecotest CARD DKG-21, for 1, 3, 5, 10 minutes.

RESULTS

Lifetime attributable risk of cancer was estimated using the approach of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report VII. The 6-month ED of vascular surgeons and scrub nurses were 3.85, 1.31 mSv, respectively. The attenuation rate of lead apron, neck protector and goggle were 74.6%, 60.6%, and 70.1%, respectively. All cancer incidences among surgeons and scrub nurses correspond to 2,355 and 795 per 100,000 persons. The 10-minute dose at 100-cm distance was 0.004 mSv at horizontal, 0.009 mSv at downward 45°, 0.003 mSv at upward 45°.

CONCLUSION

Although yearly radiation hazards for vascular surgeons and scrub nurses are still within safety guidelines, protection principles can never be too stringent when aiming to minimize the cumulative harmful effects.