ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE IN THE MAIN PAEDIATRIC 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.