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]

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]

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]

In response to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which lowered the lens equivalent dose limit, Japan lowered the lens dose limit from 150 mSv/year to 100 mSv/5 years and 50 mSv/year, with this new rule taking effect on April 1, 2021. DOSIRIS® is a dosimeter that can accurately measure lens dose. Herein, we investigated lens dose in interventional cardiology physicians one year before and after the reduction of the lens dose limit using a neck dosimeter and lens dosimeter measurements. With an increase in the number of cases, both personal dose equivalent at 0.07 mm [Hp(0.07), neck dosimeter] and personal dose equivalent at 3 mm depth [Hp(3), lens dosimeter] increased for most of the physicians. The Hp(3) of the lens considering the shielding effect of the Pb glasses using lens dosimeter exceeded 20 mSv/year for two of the 14 physicians. Protection from radiation dose will become even more important in the future, as these two physicians may experience radiation dose exceeding 100 mSv/5 years. The average dose per procedure increased, but not significantly. There was a strong correlation between the neck dosimeter and lens dosimeter scores, although there was no significant change before and after the lens dose limit was lowered. This correlation was particularly strong for physicians who primarily treated patients. As such, it is possible to infer accurate lens doses from neck doses in physicians who primarily perform diagnostics. However, it is desirable to use a dosimeter that can directly measure Hp(3) because of the high lens dose., (© 2024 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.)

Monitoring and protecting of occupational eye doses in interventional radiology (IR) are very important matters. DOSIRIS™ is the useful solution to estimate the 3 mm dose-equivalent (Hp(3)), and it can be worn behind lead glasses. And DOSIRIS™, adjustable according to 3 axes, it is ideally placed as close to the eye and in contact with the skin. So, DOSIRIS™ will be suitable eye lens dosimeter. However, the fundamental characteristics of the DOSIRIS™ in the diagnostic x-ray energy domain (including that of IR x-ray systems) remain unclear. Here, we evaluated the performance of the dosimeter in that energy range. As a result, the DOSIRIS™ has good fundamental characteristics (batch uniformity, dose linearity, energy dependence, and angular dependence) in the diagnostic x-ray energy domain. We conclude that the DOSIRIS™ has satisfactory basic performance for occupational eye dosimetry in diagnostic x-ray energy settings (including IR x-ray systems).

It is important to measure the radiation dose [3-mm dose equivalent, Hp(3)] in the eye. This study was to determine the current occupational radiation eye dose of staff conducting interventional cardiology procedures, using a novel direct eye dosimeter. We measured the occupational eye dose [Hp(3)] in physicians and nurses in a catheterization laboratory for 6-months. The eye doses [Hp(3)] of 12 physicians (9 with Pb glasses, 3 without), and 11 nurses were recorded using a novel direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS TM . We placed dosimeters above and under the glasses. We also estimated the eye dose [0.07-mm dose equivalent] using a neck personal dosimeter. The eye doses among interventional staff ranked in the following order: physicians without Pb glasses > physicians with Pb glasses > nurses. The shielding effect of the glasses (0.07-mm Pb) in a clinical setting was approximately 60%. In physicians who do not wear Pb glasses, the eye dose may exceed the new regulatory limit for IR staff. We found good correlations between the neck dosimeter dose and eye dosimeter dose (inside or outside glasses, R 2  = 0.93 and R 2  = 0.86, respectively) in physicians. We recommend that interventional physicians use an eye dosimeter for correct evaluation of the lens dose.

Objective: Although many patients benefit greatly from fluoroscopically guided intervention (IVR) procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one of the major disadvantages associated with these procedures, such as cardiac IVR, is the increased patient radiation dose. This study compared the entrance surface doses of x-ray equipment for cardiac IVR at the same seven cardiac catheterization laboratories between today and the past to determine the radiation doses of current cardiac IVR x-ray systems., Methods and Results: This study was conducted in 2001, 2007, and 2014 at the same seven cardiac catheterization laboratories in and around Sendai City, Japan. The entrance surface doses with cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared in 2001 (11 x-ray systems), 2007, and 2014 (12 x-ray systems) using a 20-cm-thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The x-ray conditions used in the measurements, including the image receptor field magnification mode and the recording speed for cineangiography and fluoroscopy, were those-normally used in the facilities performing PCI. Although presently, the entrance doses of x-ray equipment used for cardiac IVR tend to be lower than previously (fluoroscopy dose in 2001, 19.3 +/- 6.3 mGy/min; in 2014, 13.2 +/- 6.5 mGy/min), some equipment has a high radiation dose. In addition, the dose differences of the x-ray systems in 2014 were greater than those in the past (fluoroscopy dose in 2001, 3.4-fold; in 2014, 10.5-fold)., Conclusions: In IVR procedures, managing the radiation dose of cardiac IVR x-ray systems is a very important issue. Periodical measurement of the radiation dose of the x-ray equipment used for both cineangiography and fluoroscopy for cardiac IVR is necessary.

Objective: Interventional radiology tends to involve long procedures (i.e., long fluoroscopic times). Therefore, radiation protection for interventional radiology staff is an important issue. This study describes the occupational radiation dose for interventional radiology staff, especially nurses, to clarify the present annual dose level for interventional radiology nurses., Materials and Methods: We compared the annual occupational dose (effective dose and dose equivalent) among interventional radiology staff in a hospital where 6606 catheterization procedures are performed annually. The annual occupational doses of 18 physicians, seven nurses, and eight radiologic technologists were recorded using two monitoring badges, one worn over and one under their lead aprons., Results: The annual mean ± SD effective dose (range) to the physicians, nurses, and radiologic technologists using two badges was 3.00 ± 1.50 (0.84-6.17), 1.34 ± 0.55 (0.70-2.20), and 0.60 ± 0.48 (0.02-1.43) mSv/y, respectively. Similarly, the annual mean ± SD dose equivalent range was 19.84 ± 12.45 (7.0-48.5), 4.73 ± 0.72 (3.9-6.2), and 1.30 ± 1.00 (0.2-2.7) mSv/y, respectively. The mean ± SD effective dose for the physicians was 1.02 ± 0.74 and 3.00 ± 1.50 mSv/y for the one- and two-badge methods, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean ± SD effective dose for the nurses (p = 0.186) and radiologic technologists (p = 0.726) tended to be lower using the one-badge method., Conclusion: The annual occupational dose for interventional radiology staff was in the order physicians > nurses > radiologic technologists. The occupational dose determined using one badge under the apron was far lower than the dose obtained with two badges in both physicians and nonphysicians. To evaluate the occupational dose correctly, we recommend use of two monitoring badges to evaluate interventional radiology nurses as well as physicians.