Search

Due to the extended localized fluoroscopy, many radiographic exposures, and multiple procedures that might result in tissue reaction, patients and personnel received a significant radiation dose during interventional cardiology (IR) procedures. This study aims to calculate the radiation risk and assess patient and staff effective doses during IC procedures. Thirty-two patients underwent a Cath lab treatment in total. Ten Cath lab personnel, including six nurses, two cardiologists, and two X-ray technologists. Optical stimulating-luminescent dosimeters (OSL) (Al2O3:C) calibrated for this purpose were used to monitor both occupational and ambient doses. Using an automated OSL reader, these badges were scanned. The Air Kerma (mGy) and Kerma Area Products (KAP, mGy.cm 2 ) have a mean and standard deviation (SD) of 371 ± 132 and 26052, respectively. The average personal dose equivalent (mSv) and its range for cardiologists, nurses and X ray technologists were 1.11 ± 0.21 (0.96-1.26), 0.84 ± 0.11 (0.68-1.16), and 0.68 ± 0.014 (0.12-0.13), respectively. The current study findings showed that the annual effective dose for cardiologists, nurses, and X-ray technologists was lesser than the yearly occupational dose limit of 20 mSv recommended by national and international guidelines. The patients' doses are comparable with some previously published studies and below the tissue reaction limits., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare that there is no conflict of Interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Occupational radiation exposure can occur due to various human activities, including the use of radiation in medicine. Occupationally exposed personnel surpassing 7.4 millions, and respresent the biggest single group of employees who are exposed to artificial radiation sources at work. This study compares the occupational radiation dose levels for 145 workers in four different hospitals located in the Aseer region in Saudi Arabia. The occupational exposure was quantified using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD-100). The levels of annual occupational exposures in targeted hospitals were calculated and compared with the levels of the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) Safety Standards. An average yearly cumulative dose for the two consecutive years. The average, highest and lowest resulted occupational doses under examination in this work is 1.42, 3.9 mSv and 0.72 for workers in various diagnostic radiology procedures. The resulted annual effective dose were within the IAEA approved yearly dose limit for occupational exposure of workers over 18, which is 20 mSv. Staff should be monitored on a regular basis, according to current practice, because their annual exposure may surpass 15% of the annual effective doses., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Staff occupational radiation exposure is limited to 20 mSv annually to preclude tissue reaction and lower risk of cancer effect. Staff occupational exposure arises during the preparation, injection, and scanning of the patients. Recent studies reported that nuclear medicine personnel might exceed the annual dose limit in high workload and poor radiation protection circumstances. Therefore, an accurate estimation of the annual dose limit is recommended. The goal of this research is to calculate the cumulative external effective dose (mSv) per year for nuclear medicine physicians, technologists, and nurses at SPECT/CT department. A total of 15 staff worked in the nuclear medicine department at King Saud Medical City (KSMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were evaluated for the last six years. 99m Tc is used more frequently for most of the patients. The procedures include renal, cardiac scintigraphy procedures. Staff dose was quantified using calibrated thermoluminecnt dosimeters (TLD-100) with an automatic TLD reader (Harshaw 6600). Exposure to ionizing radiation was evaluated in terms of deep doses (Hp(10) were evaluated. The overall average and standard deviation of the external doses for nuclear medicine physicians, technologists' and nurses were 1.8 ± 0.7, 1.9 ± 0.6, 2.0 ± 0.9, 2.2 ± 0.8, 6.0 ± 2.8, and 3.6 ± 1.3 for the years 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019, and 2020, respectively. Technologists and nurses received higher doses of compared to the nuclear medicine physicians. Technologists and nurses involved in radionuclide preparation, patients' injection, and image acquisition. Staff annual exposure is below the annual dose limits; however, this external dose is considered high compared to the current workload., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Ionizing radiation exposure from medical applications is increasing annually worldwide. It was estimated that 325 million dental procedures were performed in the United States. Radiation exposure from dental radiography consists of intraoral, panoramic, and 3D imaging cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Recent studies reported an association between dental imaging procedures and increased cancer probability of brain and thyroid. Previous studies showed that some dental imaging practices exposed patients and staff to unnecessary radiation doses due to incorrect image acquisition and insufficient radiation protection measures. This study aims to (i) measure the occupational and patients doses during dental procedures and (ii) assess the current imaging techniques and radiation protection practices. Two hundred fourteen patients were evaluated for periapical, bitewing, cephalometric, occlusal, and panoramic procedures. Organ equivalent doses were quantified for the breast, eye lens, and thyroid gland during CBCT procedure. Occupational and ambient dose assessment were assessed using calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100(LiF: Mg. Ti). Ambient doses were measure at different locations at the department using TLDs. Patients' radiation doses were quantified using kerma area product (PKA (mGy.cm) and the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK (mGy). Fixed tube voltage (65 kVp) and tube current-time product (7 mAs) were used. The overall mean, sd, and range of patients dose values during intraoral (mGy), panoramic and CBCT examinations were 4.6 ± 0.7 (1.4-7.1), 135 ± 45 (75.2-168.5), and 215 ± 165 (186-2115), respectively. The mean and range of the annual occupational doses (mSv) were 1.4 (0.6-3.7), which below the annual dose limits for radiation workers (20 mSv/y). The study showed that inadequate radiation protection for patients existed in terms of the use of the thyroid shield, the technologist's presence inside the room during radiation exposure. Patients' radiation doses were comparable with the international diagnostic reference level (DRL). Staff education and training in radiation protection aspects are highly recommended., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with a considerable radiation exposure for patients and staff. While optimization of the radiation dose is recommended, few studies have been published. The purpose of this study has been to measure patient and staff radiation dose, to estimate the effective dose and radiation risk using digital fluoroscopic images. Entrance skin dose (ESD), organ and effective doses were estimated for patients and staff., Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients were studied using digital X-ray machine and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) to measure ESD at different body sites. Organ and surface dose to specific radiosensitive organs was carried out. The mean, median, minimum, third quartile and the maximum values are presented due to the asymmetry in data distribution., Results: The mean ESD, exit and thyroid surface dose were estimated to be 75.6 mGy, 3.22 mGy and 0.80 mGy, respectively. The mean effective dose for both gastroenterologist and assistant is 0.01 mSv. The mean patient effective dose was 4.16 mSv, and the cancer risk per procedure was estimated to be 2 × 10(-5)., Conclusion: ERCP with fluoroscopic technique demonstrate improved dose reduction, compared to the conventional radiographic based technique, reducing the surface dose by a factor of 2, without compromising the diagnostic findings. The radiation absorbed doses to the different organs and effective doses are relatively low.

One the most complicated gastrointestinal procedures, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) uses fluoroscopy guidance of an endoscope to diagnose and treat hepatobiliary system pathologies. As is true of all approved interventional radiology, it is justified by the massive benefit that it is capable of delivering, one which for the patient far outweighs the risks from radiation exposure. Nevertheless, for both patients and staff there is a need to minimize the risk of carcinogenesis and the potential for tissue reactions. Recent concern has been shown in regard to radiation induced eye lens opacifications and cataract, most particularly for the members of staff who during their regular theatre practice are in closest contact with the patient. Therefore, optimum balance between benefit versus radiation risk is required. This study reviews patient and staff dose during ERCP procedures, also seeking to provide comprehensive data regarding radiation exposure management techniques. Patient and staff doses depend on the operators, equipment and patient related factors, benefitting from awareness and experience in respect of radiation protection techniques and the availability of modern fluoroscopic equipment. It is apparent that in high workload departments, staff doses to eye lens may exceed the limits on annual exposure. • Previous studies in patients and occupational dosimetry had been studies. • Patients and staff remain constant regardless of the X ray technology development. • ERCP is safe during pregnancy for patients and pregnant workers. • It is apparent that in high workload departments, staff doses to eye lens may exceed the limits on annual exposure. • Lack of training and monitoring services in gastroenterology department are frequently reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical personnel working with ionizing radiation are exposed to significant radiation doses. Previously published studies reported increased incidence of induced cancer and cataracts among radiation workers in medical and industrial premises due to exposure to ionizing radiation. Therefore, an assessment of occupational exposure is recommended. The purpose of this study is to estimate the radiation risk caused by staff exposure and ambient exposures during diagnostic radiography. The study involved 46 staff members: 38 technologists, 8 Radiologists and 22 patients: 11 undergoing conventional radiology and 11 undergoing fluoroscopic radiology. Occupational and ambient doses were measured using calibrated optical stimulating-luminescent dosimeters (OSL) (Al2O3:C). These badges were read using an automatic OSL reader. Patients' doses were calculated form the reading of the x-ray machines. Calculating the dose parameters for patients, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the kVp, mAs, and patient doses in terms of Dose Area Product (DAP)were 113.1 ± 16.2, 7.5 ± 11.65, and 869.6, respectively. The mean and range of the annual effective dose (mSv) for technologists was (0.6 ± 0.36) (0–2.11). The mean and range of effective dose (mSv) for Radiologists were (0.48 ± 0.19) (0.17–0.74). The occupational exposure in this study showed that radiology technologists and radiologists are exposed to a low dose according to the current workload. The staff dose reported in this study is lower than those available in most previous studies. • Staff annual radiation dose were assessed for radiology technologists for two consecutive years. • Occupational doses were quantified with OSL dosimeters. • The occupational exposure is 90% below the annual dose limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation of medical personnel is very common at radiology and nuclear medicine departments. Strict regulations and guidelines for the exposure of staff working in such departments were regulated by international authorities such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as well as national protocols. In order to reduce stochastic effects, for example, radiation induced carcinogenesis, the exposure of staff working at nuclear medicine department should be maintained at levels lower than 20 mSv per year or 100 mSv in five years. The objective of this study is to measure staff radiation dose at four radiology departments in the south region of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Exposures received by a total of 106 staff working at the radiology department were monitored for two consecutive years using calibrated Thermoluminecnt dosimeters (LiF:Mg:Ti (TLD-100). Exposure was then quantified in terms of deep dose: Hp (10). The TLD signal was obtained using an automatic TLD reader (Harshaw 6600). The overall annual dose for staff was 1.4 ± 0.37 (0.67–8.74). The study revealed that the annual radiation exposure in the four-radiology department is below the annual dose limits. However, staff doses could be reduced if proper radiation protection are followed. • Staff annual radiation dose were assessed for radiology technologists for two consecutive years. • Occupational doses were quantified with LiF: Mg, Ti (TLD-100). • 90% of monitored staff received an annual occupational dose below 2.0 mSv. • Radiology technologists are well protected against occupational exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In interventional radiology attendant staff can be exposed to significant doses from the radiation scattered from the patient, giving rise to heterogeneous energy distribution, exposure occurring over extended periods of time. Protection of staff is a prime concern, also including reducing the risk of carcinogenesis. With only limited published studies available, as in for instance in regard to lens opacifications, further evaluation of staff exposures and assessment of radiation protection techniques and measures are crucial. Present study has sought to evaluate staff radiation exposure in a radiology department that performs interventional procedures. Annual occupational exposures were obtained for 32 personnel (6 females and 26 males) in a radiology department at a tertiary hospital. Personal dose equivalent H p (d) was measured in terms of H p (0.07) (shallow dose) and H p (10) (deep dose). The measurements were made over a period of two consecutive years, 2017 and 2018, use being made of TLD-100 thermoluminescent dosimeters. In units of mSv, the corresponding average annual dose equivalent and range for H p (10) and H p (0.07) were 4.6 ± 7.0 (0.1–25.5) and 5.1 ± 7.3 (0.1–25.5). Notably, 16% of staff received doses that were greater than the annual dose limit. Since H p (10) offers a conservative evaluation of effective dose, evaluation of the working environment is necessary in seeking to ensure dose values remain below annual dose limits. • Occupational exposure was measured at interventional radiology department. • Personal dose equivalent (H p (d) were measured in terms of H p (0.07) (shallow dose) and H p (10) (deep dose) were evaluated. • Staff exposures were measured using TLD-100 thermoluminecent dosimeters. • 16% of the staff received doses that were greater than the annual dose limit. • Variation in staff dose is due to workload and type of the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]