Search

We quantified the level of backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads using a phantom. We also evaluated the shielding rate of the protective eyewear and optimal placement of the eye-dedicated dosimeter (skin surface or behind the Pb-eyewear). We performed diagnostic X-rays of two head phantoms: Styrofoam (negligible backscatter radiation) and anthropomorphic (included backscatter radiation). Radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters were used to measure the eye-lens dose, with or without 0.07-mm Pb-equivalent protective eyewear. We used tube voltages of 50, 65 and 80 kV because the scattered radiation has a lower mean energy than the primary X-ray beam. The backscatter radiation accounted for 17.3-22.3% of the eye-lens dose, with the percentage increasing with increasing tube voltage. Furthermore, the shielding rate of the protective eyewear was overestimated, and the eye-lens dose was underestimated when the eye-dedicated dosimeter was placed behind the protective eyewear. We quantified the backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads. To account for the effect of backscatter radiation, an anthropomorphic, rather than Styrofoam, phantom should be used. Close contact of the dosimeter with the skin surface is essential for accurate evaluation of backscatter radiation from physician's own heads. To assess the eye-lens dose accurately, the dosimeter should be placed near the eye. If the dosimeter is placed behind the lens of the protective eyewear, we recommend using a backscatter radiation calibration factor of 1.2-1.3., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japanese Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.)

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., (© 2024 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.)

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 (R 2  = 0.91) and percutaneous coronary intervention (R 2  = 0.93). Kerma-area product values may be used for a rough estimation of the eye dose for physicians during routine coronary angiography procedures (R 2  = 0.76). For nurses, the neck dose is a good proxy for the eye dose during coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures., (© 2022. Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.)

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, R 2 = 0.82 and R 2 = 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, R 2 = 0.50 and R 2 = 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.

Purpose: The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended that interventional radiologies (IRs) have high radiation doses and that staff may also be exposed to high doses. In the present study, we measured the radiation exposure dose [3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3) ] in the eye using an appropriate dosimeter placed next to the physician' s eye during neurovascular intervention procedure (Neuro-IR) and interventional cardiac electrophysiology procedure (EP-IR)., Method: Physicians wore a direct eye dosemeter just lateral to the left eye and an additional direct eye dosemeter outside the radiation protective glasses close to their left eye. Additionally, a neck badge [0.07 mm dose equivalent, Hp (0.07) ] was worn outside the protective apron to the left of the neck, to compare the direct eye dosimeter estimated doses. The occupational eye lens dose was evaluated over a period of 6-month., Results: The maximum Hp (3) of the Neuro-IR physician was estimated 5.1 mSv without the radiation protective glasses and 1.6 mSv with the radiation protective glasses. On the other hand, the maximum Hp (3) of the EP-IR physician was estimated 29 mSv without the radiation protective glasses and 15 mSv with the radiation protective glasses., Conclusion: Physicians eye lens dose [Hp (3) ] tended to be overestimated by the neck badge measurements [Hp (0.07)]. A correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp (3) ] using the direct eye dosimeter is recommended. Although we found a positive correlation between Hp (0.07) and Hp (3), the value of R 2 in the regression equation is low, we recommended that the eye lens dose estimated carefully from Hp (0.07).

Interventional radiology (IR) procedures tend to be complex, which delivers high radiation exposure to patient. In the present study, we measured the radiation exposure dose [Hp(3)] in the eye using a direct eye dosemeter placed next to the physician's eye during procedures. Physicians wore a direct eye dosemeter just lateral to eyes and an additional direct eye dosemeter outside the radiation protective eyeglasses close to their eyes. Additionally, a neck glass badge was worn at the neck. Although we found a positive correlation between the left neck glass badge dose [Hp(0.07)] and the left eye lens dose [Hp(3)], the value of R2 of the regression equation were 0.62 and 0.71 (outside and inside). We thought that the exact eye lens dose might not be estimated from the neck glass badge. In conclusion, a correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using the direct eye dosemeter is recommended for tachyarrhythmia physicians., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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).

Interventional radiology procedures often involve lengthy exposure to fluoroscopy-derived radiation. We therefore devised a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) procedure using a human phantom that proved to protect the patient and physician by reducing the radiation dose. We evaluated a new lead-shielding device and separately attached additional filters (1.0-, 2.0-, and 3.0-mm Al filters and a 0.5-mm Cu filter) during VFSS to reduce the patient's entrance skin dose (ESD). A monitor attached to the human phantom's neck measured the ESD. We also developed another lead shield (VFSS Shielding Box, 1.0-mm Pb equivalent) and tested its efficacy using the human phantom and an ionization chamber radiation survey meter with and without protection from scattered radiation at the physician's position on the phantom. We then measured the scattered radiation (at 90 and 150 cm above the floor) after combining the filters with the VFSS Shielding Box. With the additional filters, the ESD was reduced by 15.4-55.1%. With the VFSS Shielding Box alone, the scattered radiation was reduced by about 10% compared with the dose without additional shielding. With the VFSS Shielding Box and filters combined, the scattered radiation dose was reduced by a maximum of about 44% at the physician's position. Thus, the additional lead-shielding device effectively provided protection from scattered radiation during fluoroscopy. These results indicate that the combined VFSS Shielding Box and filters can effectively reduce the physician's and patient's radiation doses.

There are no feasible real-time and direct skin dosimeters for interventional radiology. One would be available if there were x-ray phosphors that had no brightness change caused by x-ray irradiation, but the emission of the Y 2 O 3 :Eu, (Y, Gd, Eu)BO 3 , and YVO 4 :Eu phosphors investigated in our previous study was reduced by x-ray irradiation. We found that the brightness of those phosphors recovered, and the purpose of this study is to investigate their recovery phenomena. It is expected that more kinds of phosphors could be used in x-ray dosimeters if the brightness changes caused by x-rays are elucidated and prevented. Three kinds of phosphors-Y 2 O 3 :Eu, (Y, Gd, Eu)BO 3 , and YVO 4 :Eu-were irradiated by x-rays (2 Gy) to reduce their brightness. After the irradiation, brightness changes occurring at room temperature and at 80 °C were investigated. The irradiation reduced the brightness of all the phosphors by 5%-10%, but the brightness of each recovered immediately both at room temperature and at 80 °C. The recovery at 80 °C was faster than that at room temperature, and at both temperatures the recovered brightness remained at 95%-98% of the brightness before the x-ray irradiation. The brightness recovery phenomena of Y 2 O 3 :Eu, (Y, Gd, Eu)BO 3 , and YVO 4 :Eu phosphors occurring after brightness deterioration due to x-ray irradiation were found to be more significant at 80 °C than at room temperature. More kinds of phosphors could be used in x-ray scintillation dosimeters if the reasons for the brightness changes caused by x-rays were elucidated.

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: Cardiac interventional radiology (IR) can cause radiation injury to the staff who administer it as well as to patients. Although education in the basic principles of radiation is required for nurses, their level of radiation safety knowledge is not known. The present study used a questionnaire protocol to assess the level of radiation safety knowledge among hospital nurses., Methods and Results: A questionnaire to assess the level of training and current understanding of radiation safety was administered to 305 nurses in 2008 and again to 359 nurses in 2010. Our study indicates that nurses had insufficient knowledge about radiation safety, and that a high percentage of nurses were concerned about the health hazards of radiation. Moreover, more than 80% of the nurses expressed an interest in attending periodic radiation safety seminars. Annual radiation protection training for hospital staff (including nurses) is important., Conclusions: Our results suggest that nurses do not have sufficient knowledge of radiation safety and should receive appropriate radiation safety training. Many had a minimal understanding of radiation and thus had significant concerns about the safety of working with radiation. Periodic radiation safety education/training for nurses is essential.

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.

Radiation protection for interventional radiology (IR) physicians is very important. Current IR X-ray systems tend to use flat-panel detectors (FPDs) rather than image intensifiers (IIs). The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in physician-received scatter radiation (PRSR) between FPD systems and II systems. This study examined 20 X-ray systems in 15 cardiac catheterisation laboratories (11 used a FPD and 9 used an II). The PRSR with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared among the 20 X-ray systems using a phantom and a solid-state-detector electronic pocket dosemeter. The maximum PRSR exceeded the minimum PRSR by ~12-fold for cineangiography and ~9-fold for fluoroscopy. For both fluoroscopy and digital cineangiography, the PRSR had a statistically significant positive correlation with the entrance surface dose (fluoroscopy, r = 0.87; cineangiography, r = 0.86). There was no statistically significant difference between the average PRSR of FPDs and IIs during either digital cineangiography or fluoroscopy. There is a wide range of PRSR among the radiography systems evaluated. The PRSR correlated well with the entrance surface dose of the phantom in 20 X-ray units used for IR. Hence, decreasing the dose to the patient will also decrease the dose to staff.

This paper describes the present status and countermeasures for patient dose and occupational exposure in Japan. The patient radiation dose resulting from a large number of diagnostic radiological procedures presents no substantial risk(deterministic and stochastic effects). Nevertheless, some procedures (e.g., interventional radiology: IVR) carry a risk of deterministic effects, such as skin injury. The regulatory dose limit of the occupational dose for most medical workers was not exceeded. Nevertheless, radiation injuries, such as cataracts, to physicians performing IVR have been reported recently, although not many cases. When radiation protection/optimization issues are addressed adequately, medical exposure will decrease without decreasing the diagnostic benefit to the patient. Consequently, decreasing the patient dose will also decrease occupational exposure.

Objective: Interventional radiology tends to involve long procedures (i.e., long fluoroscopic times). Therefore, radiation protection for interventional radiology physicians and staff is an important issue. We examine and identify sources of staff-received scattered radiation in an interventional radiology system using a pinhole camera method., Conclusion: Physicians and staff are exposed primarily to two sources of scattered radiation: radiation scattered from the patient and radiation from the cover of the x-ray beam collimating device. Those who stand close to the patient and the x-ray beam collimating device, where scattered radiation is higher, have higher radiation doses. Thus, radiation protection during interventional radiology procedures is an important problem.

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 approximately 20% less than the lead aprons, and are non-toxic.

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]