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

Development of Lead-Free Materials for Radiation Shielding in Medical Settings: A Review

Radiation protection is an essential issue in diagnostic radiology to ensure the safety of patients, healthcare professionals, and the general public. Lead has traditionally been used as a shielding material due to its high atomic number, high density, and effectiveness in attenuating radiation. However, some concerns related to the long-term health effects of toxicity, environmental disease as well as heavy weight of lead have led to the search for alternative lead-free shielding materials. Leadfree multilayered polymer composites and non-lead nano-composite shields have been suggested as effective shielding materials to replace conventional lead-based and single metal shields. Using several elements with high density and atomic number, such as bismuth, barium, gadolinium, and tungsten, offer significant enhancements in the shielding ability of composites. This review focuses on the development and use of lead-free materials for radiation shielding in medical settings. It discusses the drawbacks of traditional lead shielding, such as toxicity, weight, and recycling challenges, and highlights the benefits of lead-free alternatives.

Comparison of shielding effects of over-glasses-type and regular eyewear in terms of occupational eye dose reduction

Given the new recommendations for occupational eye lens doses, various lead glasses have been used to reduce irradiation of interventional radiologists. However, the protection afforded by lead glasses over prescription glasses (thus over-glasses-type eyewear) has not been considered in detail. We used a phantom to compare the protective effects of such eyewear and regular eyewear of 0.07 mm lead-equivalent thickness. The shielding rates behind the eyewear and on the surface of the left eye of an anthropomorphic phantom were calculated. The left eye of the phantom was irradiated at various angles and the shielding effects were evaluated. We measured the radiation dose to the left side of the phantom using RPLDs attached to the left eye and to the surface/back of the left eyewear. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded good protection against x-rays from the left and below; the average shielding rates on the surface of the left eye ranged from 0.70-0.72. In clinical settings, scattered radiation is incident on physicians' eyes from the left and below, and through any gap in lead glasses. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded better protection than regular eyewear of the same lead-equivalent thickness at the irradiation angles of concern in clinical settings. Although clinical evaluation is needed, we suggest over-glasses-type Pb eyewear even for physicians who do not wear prescription glasses.

How efficient are metal-polymer and dual-metals-polymer non-lead radiation shields?

INTRODUCTION

Lead shields are often used to attenuate ionising radiations. However, to make lighter, recyclable and more efficient shields compared to lead, combinations of new metallic compounds together with polymer, for example, flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) have been developed recently. In this study, the capabilities of non-lead radiation shields made of one or two metallic compounds and polymer were evaluated.

METHODS

Monte Carlo (MC)-based BEAMnrc code was used to build a functional model based on a Philips X-ray machine in the range of radiographic energies. The MC model was then verified by IPEM Report 78 as a standardised global reference. The MC model was then used to evaluate the efficiency of non-lead-based garments made of metallic compound and polymer (MCP) including BaSO4 -PVC, Bi2 O3 -PVC, Sn-PVC and W-PVC, as well as dual-metallic compounds and polymer (DMCP) including Bi2 O3 -BaSO4 -PVC, Bi2 O3 -Sn-PVC, W-Sn-PVC and W-BaSO4 -PVC. The absorbed doses were determined at the surface of a water phantom and compared directly with the doses obtained for 0.5 mm pure lead (Pb).

RESULTS

Bi2 O3 -BaSO4 -PVC and W-BaSO4 -PVC were found to be efficient shields for most of the energies. In addition to the above radiation shields, Bi2 O3 -Sn-PVC was also found to be effective for the spectrum of 60 keV. Bi2 O3 -BaSO4 -PVC as a non-lead dual metals-PVC shield was shown to be more efficient than pure lead in diagnostic X-ray range.

CONCLUSION

Combination of two metals-PVC, a low atomic number (Z) metal together with a high atomic number metal, and also single-metal-PVC shields were shown to be efficient enough to apply as radiation protection shields instead of lead-based garments.

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.

Scatter Radiation Distribution to Radiographers, Nearby Patients and Caretakers during Portable and Pediatric Radiography Examinations

Scatter radiation from portable and pediatric X-rays could pose a risk to radiographers, nearby patients, and caretakers. We aim to evaluate the spatial scatter radiation distribution to the radiographers, nearby patients, and caretakers during common projections in portable and pediatric X-rays. We evaluated the three-dimensional scatter dose profiles of four and three commonly used portable and pediatric X-ray projections, respectively, by anthropomorphic phantoms and scatter probes. For portable X-ray, the AP abdomen had the highest scatter radiation dose recorded. Radiographer scatter radiation doses were 177 ± 8 nGy (longest cord extension) and 14 ± 0 nGy (hiding behind the portable X-ray machine). Nearby patient scatter radiation doses were 3323 ± 28 nGy (40 cm bed distance), 1785 ± 50 nGy (80 cm bed distance), and 580 ± 42 nGy (160 cm bed distance). The AP chest and abdomen had the highest scatter radiation dose in pediatric X-rays. Caretaker scatter radiation doses were 33 ± 1 nGy (50 cm height) and 659 ± 7 nGy (140 cm height). Although the estimated lens doses were all within safe levels, the use of shielding and caution on dose estimation by inverse square law is suggested to achieve the ALARA principle and dose optimization.

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.

Awareness of Medical Radiologic Technologists of Ionizing Radiation and Radiation Protection

Japanese people experienced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. criticality accident, it was found that many human resources are needed to respond to residents' concerns about disaster exposure in the event of a radiation disaster. Medical radiologic technologists learn about radiation from the time of their training, and are engaged in routine radiographic work, examination explanations, medical exposure counseling, and radiation protection of staff. By learning about nuclear disasters and counseling, we believe they can address residents' concerns. In order to identify items needed for training, we examined the perceptions of medical radiologic technologists in the case of different specialties, modalities and radiation doses. In 2016, 5 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, we conducted a survey of 57 medical radiologic technologists at two medical facilities with different specialties and work contents to investigate their attitudes toward radiation. 42 participants answered questions regarding sex, age group, presence of children, health effects of radiation exposure, radiation control, generation of X rays by diagnostic X ray equipment, and radiation related units. In a comparison of 38 items other than demographic data, 14 showed no significant differences and 24 showed significant differences. This study found that perceptions of radiation were different among radiology technologists at facilities with different specialties. The survey suggested the possibility of identifying needed training items and providing effective training.

Lead-Dust Contamination on Radiation Protection Apparel

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prevalence of surface lead-dust contamination on radiation protection apparel (RPAs) in the radiology department and compare findings with those from other studies of RPA lead-dust contamination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey of RPAs was conducted between June and December 2021 in radiology departments at a tertiary-care university hospital. A convenience sample of RPAs located on wall-mounted racks outside the angiography suite and emergency department was surveyed. Surface lead dust on RPAs was detected using a rapid qualitative test.

RESULTS

A total of 69 RPAs included full-length frontal lead aprons (n = 11), full-length frontal lead aprons (n = 25) with thyroid collars (n = 25), and thyroid collars alone (n = 8). Garments consisted mainly of a lead/antimony composite core with a 0.5-mm lead equivalency. One RPA failed radiologic quality inspection, and 8 garments were in poor or worn condition. The overall prevalence of surface lead-dust contamination on RPAs was 60.9% (95% CI, 49.1%-71.5%) and was significantly (P = .0035) higher on thyroid collars (78.8% [95% CI, 62.2%-89.3%]) than on lead aprons (44.4% [95% CI, 29.5%-60.4%]).

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of surface lead-dust contamination was detected on RPAs using a rapid qualitative test. There is currently no established safe level of lead, and these findings suggest RPAs be monitored frequently not only for physical defects limiting radiation protection but also for lead-dust contamination.

LENS EQUIVALENT DOSE OF STAFF DURING ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY: DOSE COMPARISON USING TWO TYPES OF DOSEMETERS

This study aimed to compare the lens equivalent dose (LED) measured during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using DOSIRIS™ as a dedicated dosemeter to that measured using glass badges to determine if glass badges can be alternative tools for LED measurement. LEDs for physicians during ERCP were measured using the DOSIRIS™ [3-mm dose equivalent] worn on the outer edge of the eyes and personal dosemeters (glass badges) [0.07-mm dose equivalent] worn on the right and left sides of the neck. The cumulated doses over 6 months for the left eye using DOSIRIS™ were 9.5 and 11.8 mSv for physicians A and B, whereas doses measured using glass badges were 7.5 and 11.6 mSv, respectively. The LEDs of the physicians at the left eye and left neck side showed almost similar values and were significantly correlated (r = 0.95; p < 0.01). For an accurate LED measurement during ERCP, using a dosemeter such as DOSIRIS™ is recommended, although similar LED estimation values were reported using glass badges on the left neck side.

Comparison of Shielding Material Dispersion Characteristics and Shielding Efficiency for Manufacturing Medical X-ray Shielding Barriers

During medical diagnoses, X-ray shielding barriers are used to protect against direct and indirect X-rays. Currently, lead is used as the primary material for shielding barriers; however, the demand for eco-friendly shielding barriers has been increasing. Conventionally, shielding barriers are manufactured using a mechanically bonded combination of lead and aluminum; however, in this study, a plastic-based injection-molded product was developed using tungsten as an eco-friendly alternative to lead. A new process technology was required for mixing tungsten-which can be difficult to process-with a polymer. Consequently, the mixing conditions within the injection molding machine and the related compounding technology factors were analyzed. The process technology considered the pre-mixing method using powdery polymer, particle dispersion method, number of screw rotations, and amount of filler input. The product's shielding performance was then analyzed. The tungsten content of the 2-mm thick barrier manufactured using the proposed method was 90 wt%, and the lead equivalent was 0.321 mmPb. To increase the effectiveness of injection molding in the manufacturing process, specific hourly compounding conditions were proposed. Consequently, the process technology method developed in this study can be considered suitable for manufacturing various shielding barriers.

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.

Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy

It is important to evaluate the radiation eye dose (3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3)) received by physicians during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy, as physicians are close to the source of scattered radiation. In this study, we measured the radiation eye dose in Hp (3) received by one physician during CTF in a timeframe of 18 months using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS^TM. The physician placed eye dosimeters above and under their lead (Pb) eyeglasses. We recorded the occupational radiation dose received using a neck dosimeter, gathered CT dose-related parameters (e.g., CT-fluoroscopic acquisition number, CT-fluoroscopic time, and CT-fluoroscopic mAs), and performed a total of 95 procedures during CTF-guided biopsies. We also estimated the eye dose (Hp (3)) received using neck personal dosimeters and CT dose-related parameters. The physician eye doses (right and left side) received in terms of Hp (3) without the use of Pb eyeglasses for 18 months were 2.25 and 2.06 mSv, respectively. The protective effect of the Pb eyeglasses (0.5 mm Pb) on the right and left sides during CTF procedures was 27.8 and 37.5%, respectively. This study proved the existence of significant correlations between the eye and neck dose measurement (right and left sides, R² = 0.82 and R² = 0.55, respectively) in physicians. In addition, we found significant correlations between CT-related parameters, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs, and radiation eye doses (right and left sides, R² = 0.50 and R² = 0.52, respectively). The eye dose of Hp (3) received in CTF was underestimated when evaluated using neck dosimeters. Therefore, we suggest that the physician involved in CTF use a direct eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS for the accurate evaluation of their eye lens dose.