Search

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.)

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: 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.

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]