Occupational doses to the eye lens in pediatric and adult noncardiac interventional radiology procedures

Medical staff dose estimation during pediatric cardiac interventional procedures

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the occupational doses (eye lens, extremities and whole body) in paediatric cardiac interventional and diagnostic catheterization procedures performed in a paediatric reference hospital located in Recife, Pernambuco. For eye lens dosimetry, the results show that the left eye receives a higher dose than the right eye, and there is a small difference between the doses received during diagnostic (D) and therapeutic (T) procedures. The extrapolated annual values for the most exposed eye are close to the annual limit. For doses to the hands, it was observed that in a significant number of procedures (37 out of 45 therapeutic procedures, or 82%) at least one hand of the physician was exposed to the primary beam. During diagnostic procedures, the physician's hand was in the radiation field in 11 of the 17 catheterization procedures (65%). This resulted in a 10-fold increase in dose to the hands. The results underscore the need for optimization of radiation safety and continued efforts to engage staff in a radiation safety culture.

Alerts to improve occupational protection during Interventional Radiology. More attention is needed for simple but frequent procedures

Occupational protection could be improved in interventional radiology. The monthly personal dosimetry cannot alert on some occupational doses with anomalous values for certain procedures. Active electronic personal dosimeters linked wireless to a dose management system (DMS), allow for the measurement of occupational doses per procedure, integrating this information with patient dose indicators and with technical and geometrical conditions of the procedures. We analysed around 3100 occupational dose values for individual procedures collected during the last two years, in an interventional radiology laboratory of a University Hospital and two groups, with patient doses higher than 100 Gy.cm2, and lower than 30 Gy.cm2. An unshielded reference dosimeter located at the C-arm registers the ambient dose equivalent (ADE) per procedure to be compared with the personal dose equivalent (PDE) over the apron. The ratio between both values PDE/ADE is a good indication of occupational protection. Alerts for occupational protection optimisation are suggested. For the full sample, 8.4 % of occupational doses measured over the protective apron of the interventionists were higher than 100 µSv and 3.8 % higher than 200 µSv per procedure. Occupational protection for complex procedures (>100 Gy.cm2) had median values of 46 µSv for PDE and 3.3 % for PDE/ADE. However, for simple procedures, (<30 Gy.cm2) the median values were 10 µSv and 28.4 %. This last percentage is 9 times higher than the value for complex procedures. This lack of protection should be corrected and the need to reduce some occupational doses reinforced in radiation protection training programmes for interventionists.

Directional vector visualization of scattered rays in mobile c-arm fluoroscopy

Previous radiation protection-measure studies for medical staff who perform X-ray fluoroscopy have employed simulations to investigate the use of protective plates and their shielding effectiveness. Incorporating directional information enables users to gain a clearer understanding of how to position protective plates effectively. Therefore, in this study, we propose the visualization of the directional vectors of scattered rays. X-ray fluoroscopy was performed; the particle and heavy-ion transport code system was used in Monte Carlo simulations to reproduce the behavior of scattered rays in an X-ray room by reproducing a C-arm X-ray fluoroscopy system. Using the calculated results of the scattered-ray behavior, the vectors of photons scattered from the phantom were visualized in three dimensions. A model of the physician was placed on the directional vectors and dose distribution maps to confirm the direction of the scattered rays toward the physician when the protective plate was in place. Simulation accuracy was confirmed by measuring the ambient dose equivalent and comparing the measured and calculated values (agreed within 10%). The directional vectors of the scattered rays radiated outward from the phantom, confirming a large amount of backscatter radiation. The use of a protective plate between the patient and the physician's head part increased the shielding effect, thereby enhancing radiation protection for the physicians compared to cases without the protective plate. The use of directional vectors and the surrounding dose-equivalent distribution of this method can elucidate the appropriate use of radiation protection plates.

A practical method for routine eye lens dosimetry of staff in interventional radiology

Hospital staff doing fluoroscopy-guided interventions receive the highest doses and are at risk of exceeding the new occupational eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv. Since the introduction of the new limit in the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations different eye lens dose monitoring techniques have been tested on phantoms. This study uses real-life dose data to assess the need for routine eye lens dose monitoring. The correlation of eye lens dose and Hp (10) measured with a whole-body dosemeter above the lead apron was investigated as an alternative to dedicated eye lens dosimetry. A survey taken among the medical personnel allowed to determine the preferred method for measuring eye lens doses in daily practice.

Occupational radiation exposure to the lens of the eyes and its protection during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

This study aimed to examine occupational radiation exposure to the lens of the eyes during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study, we collected data regarding occupational radiation exposure to the lens of the eyes during ERCP. We measured radiation exposure of patients and examined its correlation with occupational exposure. In dosimetrically-measured ERCPs (n = 631), the median air kerma at the patient entrance reference point, air kerma-area product, and fluoroscopy time were 49.6 mGy, 13.5 Gycm², and 10.9 min, respectively. The median estimated annual radiation dose to the lens of the eyes was 3.7, 2.2, and 2.4 mSv for operators, assistants, and nurses, respectively. Glass badge over lead aprons and eye dosimeter results were similar in operators but differed in assistants and nurses. A strong correlation was shown between eye dosimeter measurements and patients' radiation exposure. The shielding rates of the lead glasses were 44.6%, 66.3%, and 51.7% for operators, assistants, and nurses, respectively. This study revealed the actual occupational exposure dose for the lens of the eyes during ERCP and the efficacy of lead glass. Values of radiation exposure to patients can help estimate exposure to the lens of the eyes of medical staff.

Evaluation of operator eye exposure and eye protective devices in interventional radiology: Results on clinical staff and phantom

PURPOSE

To assess occupational eye lens dose based on clinical monitoring of interventional radiologists and to assess personal protective eyewear (PPE) efficacy through measurements with anthropomorphic phantom.

METHODS

Two positions of the operator with respect to X-ray beam were simulated with phantom. Dose reduction factor (DRF) of four PPE was assessed, as well as correlation between eye lens and whole-body doses. Brain dose was also assessed. Five radiologists were monitored for one-year clinical procedures. All subjects were equipped with whole-body dosimeter placed over lead apron at the chest level and eye lens dosimeter placed over the left side of the PPE. Kerma-Area Product (KAP) of procedures performed during the monitoring period was recorded. The correlation of eye lens dose with whole-body dose and KAP was assessed.

RESULTS

DRF was 4.3/2.4 for wraparound glasses, 4.8/1.9 for fitover glasses, 9.1/6.8 for full-face visor in radial/femoral geometries. DRF of half-face visor depended on how it is worn (range 1.0-4.9). Statistically significant correlation between dose value over the PPE and chest dose was observed, while there was no correlation between eye lens dose and chest dose. The results on clinical staff showed statistically significant correlation between dose values over the PPE and KAP.

CONCLUSIONS

All PPE showed significant DRF in all configurations, provided they were worn correctly. Single DRF value is not applicable to all clinical situations. KAP is a valuable tool for determining appropriate radiation protection measures.

Surgeon eye lens dose monitoring in interventional neuroradiology, cardiovascular and radiology procedures

PURPOSE

This study investigated the radiation dose to surgeon eye lens for single procedure and normalised to exposure parameters for eight selected neuroradiology, cardiovascular and radiology interventional procedures.

METHODS

The procedures investigated were diagnostic study, Arteriovenous Malformations treatment (AVM) and aneurysm embolization for neuroradiology procedures, Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (CA-PTCA), Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator implantation (PM-ICD), Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) and Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair (FEVAR) for cardiovascular and electrophysiology procedures. CT-guided lung biopsy was also monitored. All procedures were performed with table-mounted and ceiling-suspended shields (0.5 mm lead equivalent thickness), except for FEVAR and PM-ICD where only a table mounted shield was present, and CT-guided lung biopsy where no shield was used. Dose assessment was performed using a dosemeter positioned close to the most exposed eye of the surgeon, outside the protective eyewear.

RESULTS

The surgeon most exposed eye lens median H_p(3) equivalent dose for a single procedure, without protective eyewear contribution, was 18 μSv for neuroradiology diagnostic study, 62 μSv for AVM, 38 μSv for aneurysm embolization, 33 μSv for CA-PTCA, 39 μSv for PM-ICD, 49 μSv for EVAR, 2500 μSv for FEVAR, 153 μSv for CT-guided lung biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

In interventional procedures, the 20 mSv/year dose limit for surgeon eye lens exposure might be exceeded if shields or protective eyewear are not used. Surgeon eye lens doses, normalised to single procedures and to exposure parameters, are a valuable tool for determining appropriate radiation protection measures and dedicated eye lens dosemeter assignment.

Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Eye Lens Dosimetry for Interventional Radiology Workers in China during 2017-2019

ABSTRACT

The eye lens is a sensitive tissue to ionizing radiation and recently has been recognized as more radiosensitive than previously considered. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recommended a considerable reduction in the equivalent dose limit of eye lens from 150 mSv y -1 to 20 mSv y -1 , averaged over a defined period of 5 y. In this paper, the eye lens dose of interventional radiology workers in China during 2017-2019 is analyzed to understand the current status of eye lens occupational exposure and to provide decision-making suggestions for health supervision departments using data obtained from the National Radiological Health Information Platform in China. A total of 3,026 eye lens dose records of interventional radiology workers were collected. The average annual eye lens dose (AAELD) for interventional radiology workers ranged from 1.07 to 1.51 mSv during 2017-2019 and was 1.44 mSv for all monitored interventional radiology workers, with 2,973 records (98.2%) lower than the public limit of 15 mSv and 33 records (1.1%) exceeding the newly revised occupational eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv y -1 . During the period of 2017-2019, the AAELDs of interventional radiologists (1.61 mSv) and of interventional cardiologists (1.59 mSv) were significantly higher than that of other interventional workers (0.62 mSv); the AAELD of doctors (1.50 mSv) was significantly higher than that of nurses (1.01 mSv); the AAELD of western China (2.00 mSv) was significantly higher than that of eastern (1.11 mSv) and central China (1.27 mSv); and the AAELD of males (1.59 mSv) was significantly higher than that of females (0.84 mSv). The eye lens dose of interventional radiology workers meets the Chinese standard limit of 150 mSv y -1 , while some cases exceed the one recommended by ICRP. The study shows that the interventional radiology workers' eye lens dosimetry data complied with the existing Chinese eye lens dose limits. However, education, training, and supervision of radiation protection also should be strengthened continuously for interventional radiology workers, especially for the interventional radiologists and interventional cardiologists. Significant attention should be paid to the radiation protection of underdeveloped regions in China in future works.

ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE IN THE MAIN PAEDIATRIC INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY PROCEDURES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the personal dose equivalent Hp(10) in the most frequent (non-cardiac) paediatric interventional radiology (PIR) procedures: central venous catheters (CVC), hepatic/biliary and sclerotherapy interventions. i2 active solid-state dosemeters placed over the lead apron were used to monitor the exposure of three interventional radiologists over 18 months. A database was created to register all procedures performed by each radiologist (including the type of procedure and the kerma-area product, PKA). The mean Hp(10) per procedure for CVC, sclerotherapy and hepatic/biliary interventions was respectively 0.01 ± 0.01 mSv, 0.18 ± 0.13 mSv and 0.12 ± 0.06 mSv (k = 2). A similar value of Hp(10)/PKA was found despite the type of procedure or the patient weight (~10 μSv/Gy·cm2). There was high variability among individual interventions, probably due to the variable level of complexity, which led to uncertainties in the measurements' mean higher than those associated with the dosemeter's angular and energy dependence. i2 therefore proved suitable for monitoring Hp(10) in PIR procedures.

Uncertainties in occupational eye lens doses from dosimeters over the apron in interventional practices

It is relevant to estimate the uncertainties in the measurement of eye lens doses from a personal dosimeter over the protective apron without using additional dosimetry near the eyes. Additional dosimetry for interventionists represents a difficulty for routine clinical practice. This study analyses the estimated eye doses from dosimeter values taken at chest level over the apron and their uncertainties. Measurements ofH_p(0.07) using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters located on the chest over the apron and on the glasses (in the inner and outer part of the protection) were taken from ten interventionalists in a university hospital, in the period 2018-2019 during standard clinical practice. For a total sample of 133 interventional procedures included in our study, the ratio between theH_p(0.07) on the glasses (left-outer side) and on the chest over the apron had an average of 0.74, with quartiles of 0.47, 0.64, 0.88. Statistically significant differences were found among operators using the U-Mann-Whitney test. The average transmission factor for the glasses was 0.30, with quartiles of 0.21, 0.25, and 0.32. Different complexity in the procedures, in the quality of the scatter radiation and in the individual operational practices, involve a relevant dispersion in the results for lens dose estimations from the over apron dosimeter. Lens doses may be between a 64% and an 88% of the over apron dosimeter values (using median or 3rd quartile). The use of 88% may be a conservative approach.