Mussmann B, Larsen TR, Godballe M, Abdi AJ, Kantsø A, Jakobsen AR, Nielsen MV, Jensen J. Radiation dose to multidisciplinary staff members during complex interventional procedures.
Radiography (Lond) 2024;
30:512-516. [PMID:
38241981 DOI:
10.1016/j.radi.2024.01.010]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/12/2024] [Indexed: 01/21/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Complex interventional radiology procedures involve extensive fluoroscopy and image acquisition while staff are in-room. Monitoring occupational radiation dose is crucial in optimization. The purpose was to determine radiation doses received by staff involved in complex interventional procedures performed in a dedicated vascular or neuro intervention room.
METHODS
Individual real-time radiation dose for all staff involved in vascular and neuro-interventional procedures in adult patients was recorded over a one-year period using wireless electronic dosimeters attached to the apron thyroid shield. A reference dosimeter was attached to the C-arm near the tube housing to measure scattered, unshielded radiation. Radiology staff carried shoulder thermo-luminescent dosimeters with monthly read-out to monitor dose over time.
RESULTS
Occupational radiation dose was measured in 99 interventional procedures. In many cases prostate artery embolization procedures exposed radiologists to high radiation doses with a median of 15.0 μSv and a very large spread, i.e. 0.2-152.5 μSv. In all procedures except uterine fibroid embolization radiographers were exposed to lower doses than those of radiologists, with endovascular aortic repair being the procedure with highest median exposure to assisting radiographers, i.e. 2.2 μSv ranging from 0.1 to 36.1 μSv. Median radiation dose for the reference dosimeter was 670 μGy while median staff dose for all procedures combined was 3.2 μGy.
CONCLUSION
Radiation doses for multiple staff were determined and the ratio between staff dose and reference dosimeter indicated proper use of shielding in general. Some high-dose procedures may need further optimization for certain staff members, especially those not primarily employed in radiology.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The study provides benchmark doses that may be used widely in audits and in the ongoing effort to optimize radiation protection for staff in interventional radiology.
Collapse