Cranial radiation exposure during cerebral catheter angiography: Table 1

Occupational radiation exposure to the head is higher for scrub nurses than cardiologists during cardiac angiography

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the head dose of a cardiologist to scrub and scout nurses during cardiac angiography.

DESIGN

A correlational longitudinal quantitative design was used to examine the relationship between the variable of occupational dose to the medical operator when compared with the dose to the scrub and scout nurses.

METHODS

A quantitative analysis was performed on data collected during coronary angiograms (N = 612) for one cardiologist and 22 nurses performing either the scrub or scout role between May 2015 and February 2017. Analysis was based on log-transformed dose levels and reported as geometric means and associated 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

It was found that scrub nurses received on average 41% more head dose than the cardiologist during diagnostic procedures and 52% higher doses during interventional cases.

CONCLUSION

Nurses working in fluoroscopic cardiovascular procedures should be provided with appropriate training and protective equipment, notably lead skull caps, to minimize their occupational radiation exposure.

IMPACT

There is a notable lack of research evaluating the occupational head and eye exposure to nurses involved in fluoroscopic procedures. This study found that during diagnostic coronary angiograms, the scrub nurses received 41% more occupational head dose than the cardiologist and 52% higher head doses during interventional cases. Radial access resulted in higher doses to scrub nurses than femoral artery access. It is advisable that staff wear protective lead glasses and skull caps and use appropriately positioned ceiling mounted lead shields to minimize the risk of adverse effects of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation.

Fluoroscopic Cranial Radiation Exposure in Spine Surgery: A Prospective Single-Center Evaluation in Operating Room Personnel

Background

Cranial radiation exposure during instrumented spine surgery is not well documented. We set out to measure this risk to the patient, surgeon, surgical resident, and scrub technician during these procedures.

Methods

Forty-seven individuals were enrolled during a 1.5-year period between October 2014 and March 2016 at the University of New Mexico Department of Neurosurgery. Radiation doses were obtained through electronic dosimeters placed on the surgical cap over the temporal scalp (bilaterally on surgeon and resident assist, unilaterally on surgical scrub on the side facing radiation source) and on the midline of the patient's exposed cranium.

Results

Of the 47 procedures, 39 (83%) were open and 8 (17%) were minimally invasive or percutaneous instrumented procedures. A total of 91 motion segments were treated, with a mean of 1.9 levels per case (57% lumbosacral, 34% cervical, and 2.1% thoracic). Total fluoroscopic time was 12.9 minutes. Mean dose per case (mrem/case) was calculated for the spine surgeon (1.4), resident assist (1.4), surgical scrub (1.2), and the patient (3.6). All doses were within federal safety guidelines. A spine surgeon would need to perform more than 1400 cases per year to reach the current federal maximum permissible dose for head exposure.

Conclusions

There was no difference in cranial radiation exposure between operating room staff during spine surgeries. Moreover, the doses measured at the cranium were within national safety limits. Current protective technologies have significantly reduced the amount of ionizing radiation exposure during routine spine procedures; however, changes in behavior or equipment may further reduce radiation exposure to health care workers.

Clinical Relevance

Radiation exposure to patients and hospital staff remains a major concern in the practice of modern spine surgery. Cranial exposure remains the only established environmental risk factor for brain tumors, such as gliomas and meningiomas. Our study shows that all those exposed to radiation during spine surgery had cranial doses well within the national safety limits.

Occupational radiation exposure to nursing staff during cardiovascular fluoroscopic procedures: A review of the literature

Fluoroscopy is a method used to provide real time x-ray imaging of the body during medical procedures to assist with medical diagnosis and treatment. Recent technological advances have seen an increase in the number of fluoroscopic examinations being performed. Nurses are an integral part of the team conducting fluoroscopic investigations and are often located close to the patient resulting in an occupational exposure to radiation. The purpose of this review was to examine recent literature which investigates occupational exposure received by nursing staff during cardiovascular fluoroscopic procedures. Articles published between 2011 and 2017 have been searched and comprehensively reviewed on the referenced medical search engines. Twenty-four relevant studies were identified among which seventeen investigated nursing dose comparative to operator dose. Seven researched the effectiveness of interventions in reducing occupational exposure to nursing staff. While doctors remain at the highest risk of exposure during procedures, evidence suggests that nursing staff may be at risk of exceeding recommended dose limits in some circumstances. There is also evidence of inconsistent use of personal protection such as lead glasses and skull caps by nursing staff to minimize radiation exposure. Conclusions: The review has highlighted a lack of published literature focussing on dose to nurses. There is a need for future research in this area to inform nursing staff of factors which may contribute to high occupational doses and of methods for minimizing the risk of exposure, particularly regarding the importance of utilizing radiation protective equipment.

The Efficacy of Shielding Systems for Reducing Operator Exposure during Neurointerventional Procedures: A Real-World Prospective Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neurointerventional surgery may expose patients and physician operators to substantial amounts of ionizing radiation. Although strategies for reducing patient exposure have been explored in the medical literature, there has been relatively little published in regards to decreasing operator exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of shielding systems in reducing physician exposure in a modern neurointerventional practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Informed consent was obtained from operators for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. Operator radiation exposure was prospectively measured during 60 consecutive neurointerventional procedures from October to November 2013 using a 3-part lead shielding system. Exposure was then evaluated without lead shielding in a second 60-procedure block from April to May 2014. A radiation protection drape was randomly selected for use in half of the cases in each block. Two-way analysis of covariance was performed to test the effect of shielding systems on operator exposure while controlling for other covariates, including procedure dose-area product.

RESULTS

Mean operator procedure dose was 20.6 μSv for the entire cohort and 17.7 μSv when using some type of shielding. Operator exposure significantly correlated with procedure dose-area product, but not with other covariates. After we adjusted for procedure dose-area product, the use of lead shielding or a radiation protection drape significantly reduced operator exposure by 45% (F = 12.54, P < .0001) and 29% (F = 7.02, P = .009), respectively. The difference in protection afforded by these systems was not statistically significant (P = .46), and their adjunctive use did not provide additional protection.

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive lead shielding should be used as much as possible in neurointerventional surgery to reduce operator radiation exposure to acceptable levels. A radiation protection drape is a reasonable alternative when standard lead shielding is unavailable or impractical to use without neglecting strategies to minimize the dose.

Reduced Patient Radiation Exposure during Neurodiagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Angiography with a New Imaging Platform

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Advancements in medical device and imaging technology as well as accruing clinical evidence have accelerated the growth of the endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. However, the augmented role of these procedures raises concerns about the radiation dose to patients and operators. We evaluated patient doses from an x-ray imaging platform with radiation dose-reduction technology, which combined image noise reduction, motion correction, and contrast-dependent temporal averaging with optimized x-ray exposure settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective study, cumulative dose-area product inclusive of fluoroscopy, angiography, and 3D acquisitions for all neurovascular procedures performed during a 2-year period on the dose-reduction platform were compared with a reference platform. Key study features were the following: The neurointerventional radiologist could select the targeted dose reduction for each patient with the dose-reduction platform, and the statistical analyses included patient characteristics and the neurointerventional radiologist as covariates. The analyzed outcome measures were cumulative dose (kerma)-area product, fluoroscopy duration, and administered contrast volume.

RESULTS

A total of 1238 neurointerventional cases were included, of which 914 and 324 were performed on the reference and dose-reduction platforms, respectively. Over all diagnostic and neurointerventional procedures, the cumulative dose-area product was significantly reduced by 53.2% (mean reduction, 160.3 Gy × cm²; P < .0001), fluoroscopy duration was marginally significantly increased (mean increase, 5.2 minutes; P = .0491), and contrast volume was nonsignificantly increased (mean increase, 15.3 mL; P = .1616) with the dose-reduction platform.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant reduction in patient radiation dose is achievable during neurovascular procedures by using dose-reduction technology with a minimal impact on workflow.

Attenuation assessment of medical protective eyewear: the AVEN experience

The goal of this paper is to test the attenuation capability of seven models of protective eyewear used in routine clinical practice. Scattered radiation from a standard patient was simulated by using a water tank located over the treatment couch of a GE Innova 3100 x-ray angiography system. Seven protective eyewear models were tested using an anthropomorphic phantom mimicking the first operator. At each test, 4 thermoluminiscent dosimeters were placed on the phantom (respectively in front of the protective eyewear, under the eyewear, on the left earpiece and at chest level) in order to have an eyewear-independent reference. A test session without glasses was also acquired. Each model was tested with standard posterior-anterior (PA) projections and the two most common protective eyewear were tested using LAO90° and LAO45°CRA30° projections. A worst-case scenario was created to be sure of having an upper limit for the assessment of eyewear attenuation in routine clinical practice. In PA projections, the absolute attenuation value ranged between 71% and 81%, while relative attenuation between dose measured at eye lens and that measured at eyewear earpiece ranged from 67% to 85%. The slightly wider range was probably due to scatter radiation variability; anyway, differences are still included in the variable uncertainty of experimental measurements. It is worth noting that #3 eyewear model (the one without lateral protection) allows an attenuation similar to that of #5 eyewear model (with 0.5 mm lead lateral protection) in LAO90° and LAO45°CRA30° projections. Despite the experimental limitations, a description of the radiation properties of protective eyewear concerning radiation attenuation can be useful to rely on protection devices which can be used in routine clinical practice.

The value of protective head cap and glasses in neurointerventional radiology

Background

Protection of the head and eyes of the neurointerventional radiologist is a growing concern, especially after recent reports on the incidence of brain cancer among these personnel, and the revision of dose limits to the eye lens. The goal of this study was to determine typical occupational dose levels and to evaluate the efficiency of non-routine radiation protective gear (protective eyewear and cap). Experimental correlations between the dosimetric records of each measurement point and kerma area product (KAP), and between whole body doses and eye lens doses were investigated.

Methods

Measurements were taken using thermoluminescent dosimeters placed in plastic bags and worn by the staff at different places. To evaluate the effective dose, whole body dosimeters (over and under the lead apron) were used.

Results

The mean annual effective dose was estimated at 0.4 mSv. Annual eye lens exposure was estimated at 17 mSv when using a ceiling shield but without protective glasses. The protective glasses reduced the eye lens dose by a factor of 2.73. The mean annual dose to the brain was 12 mSv; no major reduction was observed when using the cap. The higher correlation coefficients with KAP were found for the dosimeters positioned between the eyes (R2=0.84) and above the apron, and between the eye lens (R2=0.85) and the whole body.

Conclusions

Under the specific conditions of this study, the limits currently applicable were respected. If a new eye lens dose limit is introduced, our results indicate it could be difficult to comply with, without introducing additional protective eyewear.