SHOULD PERSONNEL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE DEPARTMENTS USE PERSONAL DOSIMETERS FOR EYE LENS DOSE MONITORING?

[Proposal for Reduction Measures of Eye Lens Exposure Based on Actual Exposure Management in Radiation-exposed Medical Staff]

PURPOSE

To investigate the actual condition of the crystalline lens equivalent dose and effective dose according to the type of job and the type of duties in a medical institution. We also sought to clarify effective exposure reduction strategies.

METHODS

Equivalent crystalline lens doses, effective doses, job type, and duties for 8656 persons · year were obtained from 17 medical facilities. We analyzed the relationship between the effective dose and the crystalline lens equivalent dose in uniform exposure control and non-uniform exposure control conditions. Exposure data were obtained for 13 unique job types and duties.

RESULTS

The ratio of the lens equivalent dose to the effective dose of non-uniform exposure managers was 2 to 6 times and varied depending on the occupation. The percentage of persons whose annual lens equivalent dose exceeded 20 mSv was 4.75% for medical doctors, 1.17% for nurses, and 0.24% for radiological technologists. Highly exposed tasks included doctors in cardiology and gastroenterology performing angiography and endoscopy, nurses in endoscopy, and radiological technologists in radiography and CT examinations.

CONCLUSION

Thorough unequal exposure control for operations with high crystalline lens exposure, radiation protection education, and effective use of proper personal protective equipment such as the use of radiation protection glasses may reduce lens exposure levels.

ESTIMATION OF HP(3) AMONG STAFF MEMBERS IN TWO NUCLEAR MEDICINE UNITS IN FINLAND

The eye lens exposure among 16 technicians in two nuclear medicine departments at university hospitals in Finland was investigated by measuring the operational quantity Hp(3) using EYE-D dosemeters. For all workers, the annual mean Hp(3) was estimated to be 1.1 mSv (max. 3.9 mSv). The relation between Hp(3) to routinely monitored personal dose equivalent Hp(10) was clearly correlated. Considering individual dose measurement periods (2-4 weeks), the Hp(3)/Hp(10) ratio was 0.7 (Pearson's coefficient r = 0.90, p < 0.001, variation of ratio 0.1-2.3). The variation decreased considerably with increasing Hp(10) (σ2 = 0.04 vs. 0.43 for Hp(10) > 0.1 mSv vs. < 0.1 mSv, respectively), i.e. higher Hp(10) predicts Hp(3) more reliably. Moreover, annual Hp(10) data from national dose register during 2009-2018 were used to derive the annual Hp(3) applying the Hp(3)/Hp(10) ratio. The data from Finnish nuclear medicine departments imply that routine measurements of Hp(3) among nuclear medicine technicians are not justified.

Radiation Dose to the Eye Lens Through Radiological Imaging Procedures at the Surgical Workplace During Trauma Surgery

Background: Due to the drastic reduction of the eye lens dose limit from 150 mSv per year to 20 mSv per year since 2018, the prospective investigation of the estimated dose of the eye lens by radiological imaging procedures at the surgical site during trauma surgery in the daily work process was carried out. This was also necessary because, as experience shows, with changes in surgical techniques, there are also changes in the use of radiological procedures, and thus an up-to-date inventory can provide valuable information for the assessment of occupationally induced radiation exposure of surgical personnel under the current conditions. Methods: The eye lens radiation exposure was measured over three months for five trauma surgeons, four hand surgeons and four surgical assistants with personalized LPS-TLD-TD 07 partial body dosimeters Hp (0.07). A reference dosimeter was deposited at the surgery changing room. The dosimeters were sent to the LPS (Landesanstalt für Personendosimetrie und Strahlenschutzausbildung) measuring institute (National Institute for Personal Dosimetry and Radiation Protection Training, Berlin) for evaluation after 3 months. The duration of the operation, occupation (assistant, surgeon, etc.), type of surgery (procedure, diagnosis), designation of the X-ray unit, total duration of radiation exposure per operation and dose area product per operation were recorded. Results: Both the evaluation of the dosimeters by the trauma surgeons and the evaluation of the dosimeters by the hand surgeons and the surgical assistants revealed no significant radiation exposure of the eye lens in comparison to the respective measured reference dosimeters. Conclusions: Despite the drastic reduction of the eye lens dose limit from 150 mSv per year to 20 mSv per year, the limit for orthopedic, trauma and hand surgery operations is well below the limit in this setting.