Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has lowered the annual equivalent eye-lens dose to 20 mSv. Although occupational exposure can be high in nuclear medicine (NM) departments, few studies have been conducted regarding eye-lens exposure among NM staff. This study aimed to estimate the annual lens doses of staff in an NM department and identify factors contributing to lens exposure. Four nurses and six radiographers performing positron emission tomography (PET) examinations and four radiographers performing radioisotope (RI) examinations (excluding PET) were recruited for this study. A lens dosimeter was attached near the left eye to measure the 3-mm-dose equivalent; a personal dosimeter was attached to the left side of the neck to measure the 1-cm- and 70-µm-dose equivalents. Measurements were acquired over six months, and the cumulative lens dose was doubled to derive the annual dose. Correlations between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses, between the lens dose and the numbers of procedures, and between the lens dose and the amounts of PET drugs (radiopharmaceuticals) injected were examined. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test was used to compare lens and personal-dosimeter doses. The estimated annual doses were 0.93 ± 0.13 mSv for PET nurses, 0.71 ± 0.41 mSv for PET radiographers, and 1.10 ± 0.53 mSv for RI radiographers. For PET nurses, but not for PET or RI radiographers, there was a positive correlation between the numbers of procedures and lens doses and between amounts injected and lens doses. There was a significant difference between the lens and personal-dosimeter doses of PET nurses. The use of protective measures, such as shielding, should prevent NM staff from receiving lens doses > 20 mSv/year. However, depending on the height of the protective shield, PET nurses may be unable to assess the lens dose accurately using personal dosimeters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occupational eye dose monitoring during interventional radiology and interventional cardiology is important to avoid radiation-induced cataracts. The aim of this study was to assess the eye dose correlation with neck dose and patient-related quantities for interventional cardiology physicians and nurses. The originality of this study lies in obtaining correlations between the location of the dosimeter and eye dose radiation readings among different procedures and practitioners. The doses were measured for each procedure (18 procedures of coronary angiography and 16 procedures of percutaneous coronary intervention) using an active personal dosimeter. The eye dose for physicians was not correlated with the neck dose. The eye dose for nurses had a good correlation with the neck dose during both coronary angiography (R2 = 0.91) and percutaneous coronary intervention (R2 = 0.93). Kerma-area product values may be used for a rough estimation of the eye dose for physicians during routine coronary angiography procedures (R2 = 0.76). For nurses, the neck dose is a good proxy for the eye dose during coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection for occupational eye dose is an equivalent dose limit to the eye of 20 mSv year–1, averaged over a 5-year period. This recommendation is a drastic reduction from the previous limit of 150 mSv year–1. Hence, it is important to protect physicians' eyes from X-ray radiation. Particularly in interventional radiology (IVR) procedures, many physicians use protective lead (Pb) glasses to reduce their occupational exposure. This study assessed the shielding effects of novel 0.07 mm Pb glasses. The novel glasses (XR-700) have Pb–acrylic lens molded in three dimensions. We studied the novel type of 0.07 mm Pb glasses over a period of seven consecutive months. The eye dose occupational radiation exposure of seven IVR physicians was evaluated during various procedures. All IVR physicians wore eye dosimeters (DOSIRIS™) close to the left side of the left eye. To calculate the shielding effects of the glasses, this same type of eye dosimeter was worn both inside and outside of the Pb lenses. The average shielding effect of the novel glasses across the seven physicians was 61.4%. Our results suggest an improved shielding effect for IVR physicians that use these glasses. No physician complained that the new glasses were uncomfortable; therefore comfort is not a problem. The lightweight glasses were acceptable to IVR physicians, who often must perform long procedures. Thus, the novel glasses are comfortable and reasonably protective. Based on the results of this study, we recommend that IVR physicians use these novel 0.07 mm Pb glasses to reduce their exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the clinical value of fluoroscopically guided respiratory endoscopy (bronchoscopy) is clear, there have been very few studies on the radiation dose received by staff during fluoroscopically guided bronchoscopy. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is suggesting reducing the occupational lens dose limit markedly from 150 to 20 mSv/year, averaged over defined periods of five years. The purpose of this study was to clarify the current occupational eye dose of bronchoscopy staff conducting fluoroscopically guided procedures. We measured the occupational eye doses (3-mm-dose equivalent, Hp(3)) of bronchoscopy staff (physicians and nurses) over a 6-month period. The eye doses of eight physicians and three nurses were recorded using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS. We also estimated eye doses using personal dosimeters worn at the neck. The mean ± SD radiation eye doses (DOSIRIS) to physicians and nurses were 7.68 ± 5.27 and 2.41 ± 1.94 mSv/6 months, respectively. The new lens dose limit, 20 mSv/year, may be exceeded among bronchoscopy staff, especially physicians. The eye dose of bronchoscopy staff (both physicians and nurses) was underestimated when measured using a neck dosimeter. Hence, the occupational eye dose of bronchoscopy staff should be monitored. To reduce the occupational eye dose, we recommend that staff performing fluoroscopically guided bronchoscopy wear Pb glasses. correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using an eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS is necessary for bronchoscopy staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preprocedural computed tomography (CT) imaging appears to provide an advantage in localization of the appropriate septal branch targeted for alcohol septal ablation (ASA). The objective of this study was to compare the clinical backgrounds, procedural characteristics, and outcomes of patients who underwent ASA with preprocedural CT assessment against those without CT assessment. Thirty consecutive patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who underwent ASA were retrospectively included. Patients who underwent preprocedural CT (CT-guided ASA group, n = 11) were compared with patients who underwent ASA without CT (traditional ASA group, n = 19). The CT-guided ASA group had a significantly lower number of approached target vessels (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, 1–2] vs. 2 [IQR, 2–3], P = 0.036) and non-ablated target vessels (0 [IQR, 0–1] vs. 1 [IQR, 0–2], P = 0.031) than the traditional ASA group. There were no differences between the two groups in total fluoroscopy time, the amount of delivered radiation dose, and the volume of contrast medium used during the procedures. There were also no differences between the two groups in procedural success rate and improvement of left ventricular outflow tract gradient and New York Heart Association functional class at 1 month follow-up. CT had a significant impact on the ASA procedure diminishing the number of target vessels, and could be a reliable assessment modality to build its procedural strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the use of diagnostic X-ray equipment with flat panel detectors (FPDs) has increased, so has the importance of proper management of FPD systems. To ensure quality control (QC) of FPD system, an easy method for evaluating FPD imaging performance for both stationary and moving objects is required. Until now, simple rotatable QC phantoms have not been available for the easy evaluation of the performance (spatial resolution and dynamic range) of FPD in imaging moving objects. We developed a QC phantom for this purpose. It consists of three thicknesses of copper and a rotatable test pattern of piano wires of various diameters. Initial tests confirmed its stable performance. Our moving phantom is very useful for QC of FPD images of moving objects because it enables visual evaluation of image performance (spatial resolution and dynamic range) easily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses optimal planning problems for dispersed generating sources so as to provide a guideline for their introduction to power systems. First, a recursive method is developed from the viewpoint of supplying electric power only where solutions for one unit are superposed. The computational loads are decreased by selecting alternatives of buses based on the so-called penalty factor. However, for effective utilization of dispersed generating sources, it is indispensable to consider their thermal merits in addition to electric power. After applying the Kuhn-Tucker theory to the optimal dispatching problem including boiler fuel costs, thermal values of the dispersed generating units are evaluated quantitatively. Finally, the above-mentioned technique for the optimal planning basically is also the proposed algorithms are demonstrated using a real-scale model system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms has attracted considerable attention as a promising alternative to traditional surgery. Hybrid operating room systems (HORSs) are increasingly being used to perform endovascular procedures. The clinical benefits of endovascular treatments using HORSs are very clear, and these procedures are increasing in number. In procedures such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), wires and catheters are used to deliver and deploy the stent graft in the thoracic/abdominal aorta under fluoroscopic control, including DSA. Thus, the radiation dose to the patient is an important issue. We determined radiation dose indicators (the dose–area product (DAP) and air karma (AK) parameters) associated with endovascular treatments (EVAR and TEVAR) using a HORS. As a result, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) DAPs of TEVAR and EVAR were 323.7 ± 161.0 and 371.3 ± 186.0 Gy × cm2, respectively. The mean ± SD AKs of TEVAR and EVAR were 0.92 ± 0.44 and 1.11 ± 0.54 Gy, respectively. The mean ± SD fluoroscopy times of TEVAR and EVAR were 13.4 ± 7.1 and 23.2 ± 11.7 min, respectively. Patient radiation dose results in this study of endovascular treatments using HORSs showed no deterministic radiation effects, such as skin injuries. However, radiation exposure during TEVAR and EVAR cannot be ignored. The radiation dose should be evaluated in HORSs during endovascular treatments. Reducing/optimizing the radiation dose to the patient in HORSs is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]