Search

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.)

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.

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.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japanese Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.)

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.

Featured Application: Importance of the evaluation of the physician's eye exposure to radiation during 198Au grain brachytherapy, given that the eye dose limit has been reduced drastically from 150 to 20 mSv/year. Brachytherapy is a practical, effective procedure for the local treatment of cancer; it delivers a high radiation dose to a limited tissue volume while sparing the surrounding normal tissues. Although the clinical benefit of brachytherapy is clear, there have been very few studies on the radiation dose received by physicians during the procedure. Furthermore, no study has investigated the eye radiation dose received by physicians performing 198Au grain (seed) brachytherapy, using an eye dosimeter. Recently, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended significantly reducing the occupational lens dose limit, from 150 to 20 mSv/yr (100 mSv/5 years). Therefore, it has become essential to evaluate the eye radiation doses of medical workers. We evaluated the eye radiation dose of a brachytherapy physician performing 198Au permanent grain implantation for tongue cancer; this is the first study on this topic. The maximum eye dose was ~0.1 mSv/procedure, suggesting that it is unlikely to exceed the ICRP limit (20 mSv/yr) for the lens, unless many procedures are performed with inappropriate radiation protection. To reduce the dose of radiation received by 198Au grain brachytherapy physicians, it is necessary to use additional lead shielding equipment when preparing the treatment needles, i.e., when loading the grains. This study provides useful information on radiation exposure of physicians conducting 198Au permanent grain brachytherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]

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]

In computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions (CTIs), physicians are close to a source of scattered radiation. The physician and staff are at high risk of radiation-induced injury (cataracts). Thus, dose-reducing measures for physicians are important. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians in CTIs. This study evaluated the radiation dose to the physician and medical staff using multi detector (MD)CT-fluoroscopy, and attempted to understand radiation-protection and -reduction methods. The procedures were performed using an interventional radiology (IVR)-CT system. We measured the occupational radiation dose (physician and nurse) using a personal dosimeter in real-time, gathered CT-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, mAs, CT dose index (CTDI), and dose length product (DLP)), and performed consecutive 232 procedures in CT-guided biopsy. Physician doses (eye lens, neck, and hand; μSv, average ± SD) in our CTIs were 39.1 ± 36.3, 23.1 ± 23.7, and 28.6 ± 31.0, respectively. Nurse doses (neck and chest) were lower (2.3 ± 5.0 and 2.4 ± 4.4, respectively) than the physician doses. There were significant correlations between the physician doses (eye and neck) and related factors, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs (eye dose: r = 0.90 and neck dose: r = 0.83). We need to understand the importance of reducing/optimizing the dose to the physician and medical staff in CTIs. Our study suggests that physician and staff doses were not significant when the procedures were performed with the appropriate radiation protection and low-dose techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]