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]

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]

Neurovascular interventional radiology (neuro-IR) procedures tend to require an extended fluoroscopic exposure time and repeated digital subtraction angiography. To evaluate the actual measurement of eye lens dose using a direct eye dosemeter in neuro-IR physicians is important. Direct dosimetry using the DOSIRIS™ (IRSN, France) [3 mm dose equivalent, Hp(3)] was performed on 86 cases. Additionally, a neck personal dosemeter (glass badge) [0.07 mm dose equivalent, Hp(0.07)] was worn outside the protective apron to the left of the neck. The average doses per case of neuro-IR physicians were 0.04 mSv/case and 0.02 mSv/case, outside and inside the radiation protection glasses, respectively. The protective effect of radiation protection glasses was approximately 60%. The physician eye lens dose tended to be overestimated by the neck glass badge measurements. A correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using an eye dosemeter such as DOSIRIS™ is needed for neuro-IR physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There are no effective real-time direct skin dosimeters for interventional radiology. Such a scintillation dosimeter would be available if there was a suitable red emission phosphor in the medical x-ray range, since the silicon photodiode is a highly efficient device for red light. However, it is unknown whether there is a suitable red emission phosphor. The purpose of this study is to find a suitable red emission phosphor that can be used in x-ray dosimeters. Methods: Five kinds of phosphors which emit red light when irradiated with electron beams or ultraviolet rays in practical devices were chosen. For the brightness measurement, phosphor was put into transparent plastic cells or coated onto plastic sheets. The phosphors were irradiated with medical range x-rays [60-120 kV(peak), maximum dose rate of 160 mGy min-1], and the emission was measured by a luminance meter. Several characteristics, such as brightness, dose rate dependence, tube voltage dependence, and brightness stability, were investigated. Results: The luminescence of YVO4:Eu, (Y,Gd,Eu) BO3, and Y2O3:Eu significantly deteriorated by 5%-10% when irradiated with continuous 2 Gy x-rays. The 0.5MgF2 ·3.5MgO·GeO2:Mn phosphor did not emit enough. Only the Y2O2S:Eu,Sm phosphor had hardly any brightness deterioration, and it had a linear relationship so that the x-ray dose rate could be determined from the brightness with sufficient accuracy. For the tube voltage dependence of the Y2O2S:Eu,Sm phosphor, the brightness per unit dose rate with 120 kV(peak) x-rays was 30% higher than that with 60 kV(peak) x-rays. Conclusions: Five kinds of phosphors were chosen as an x-ray scintillator for a real-time direct skin dosimeter. The YVO4:Eu, (Y,Gd,Eu)BO3, and Y2O3:Eu phosphors had brightness deterioration caused by the x-rays. Only the Y2O2S:Eu,Sm phosphor had hardly any brightness deterioration, and it is a candidate for an x-ray scintillator for such a skin dosimeter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many of the X-ray systems that are used for cardiac interventional radiology provide no way to evaluate the patient maximum skin dose (MSD). The authors report a new method for evaluating the MSD by using the cumulative patient entrance skin dose (ESD), which includes a back-scatter factor and the number of cineangiography frames during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Four hundred consecutive PCI patients (315 men and 85 women) were studied. The correlation between the cumulative ESD and number of cineangiography frames was investigated. The irradiation and overlapping fields were verified using dose-mapping software. A good correlation was found between the cumulative ESD and the number of cineangiography frames. The MSD could be estimated using the proportion of cineangiography frames used for the main angle of view relative to the total number of cineangiography frames and multiplying this by the cumulative ESD. The average MSD (3.0±1.9 Gy) was lower than the average cumulative ESD (4.6±2.6 Gy). This method is an easy way to estimate the MSD during PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study, the entrance surface dose rates received by a phantom during cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared. The X-ray conditions used in the measurements were those normally used in facilities performing percutaneous coronary intervention. Although, today, the entrance surface doses (cineangiography and fluoroscopy) of X-ray equipment used for cardiac interventional radiology (IVR) tends to be lower than they were previously, some equipment produces a high radiation dose. Therefore, the X-ray equipment used for cardiac IVR procedures must be maintained in good repair and must be carefully calibrated. In addition, periodic measurement of the radiation dose from the X-ray equipment used for both cineangiography and fluoroscopy for cardiac IVR is necessary. If the radiation dose of the X-ray system in use is too high, the IVR staff should determine the reason and make an effort to reduce it. Hence, the IVR staff must be adequately trained in radiation protection. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

At present, interventional radiology (IVR) tends to involve long procedures (long radiation duration), and physicians are near to the source of scattered radiation. Hence, shielding is critical in protecting physicians from radiation. Protective aprons and additional lead-shielding devices, such as tableside lead drapes, are important means of protecting the physician from scattered radiation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether non-lead aprons are effective in protecting physicians from radiation during IVR procedures. In this study, the radiation protection effects of commercially available protective lead and non-lead aprons, when exposed to diagnostic X rays, are compared. The performance of these non-lead and lead aprons was similar for scattered X rays at tube voltages of 60-120 kV. Properly designed non-lead aprons are thus more suitable for physicians because they weigh ∼20% less than the lead aprons, and are non-toxic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Although several cases of radiation-induced skin injury (RSI) have been reported in association with neurointerventional procedures, such as endovascular embolization for cerebral aneurysm, the absorbed doses are not directly measured in most cases. We therefore built a direct measurement system in order to simplify determination of the entrance skin dose (ESD) during neurointerventional procedures. This system was then applied to patients undergoing long and repetitive procedures in order to establish the efficacy of precise mapping of ESDs using a number of radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters (RPLDs) and to avoid RSI. We also analyzed the correlation between maximum ESDs and angiographic parameters in order to estimate maximum ESD in real-time. ESD was measured in 35 procedures in 34 cerebral aneurysm patients with a median age of 65 years (range, 38–79 years). Patients were measured for ESDs while wearing a fitted dosimetry cap equipped with 60 RPLD chips throughout the procedure. Angiographic parameters, including total fluoroscopic time and dose-area product (DAP), were recorded. The Pearson correlation test was used to determine the relationship between maximum ESD and each parameter. Five of thirty-five procedures showed temporal epilation (14.3%). The correlations between a patient’s maximum ESD and total fluoroscopic time and DAP were r = 0.7372, P < 0.001 and r = 0.6698, P < .001, respectively. We concluded that the regional ESD with geometric information could be obtained by applying the RPLDs. Although this passive dosimetry system may not entirely prevent RSI in real-time, precise dose mapping accompanied by monitoring of angiographic parameters during the procedure should contribute to reducing X-ray dose accumulation in repeated prophylactic endovascular embolization for asymptomatic cerebral aneurysm. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]