Occupational Radiation Dose to Eye Lenses in CT-Guided Interventions Using MDCT-Fluoroscopy

Fundamental study on diagnostic reference level quantities for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a C-arm fluoroscopy system

The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is an effective tool for optimising protection in medical exposures to patients. However regarding air kerma at the patient entrance reference point (Ka,r), one of the DRL quantities for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), manufacturers use a variety of the International Electrotechnical Commission and their own specific definitions of the reference point. The research question for this study was whetherKa,ris appropriate as a DRL quantity for ERCP. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference betweenKa,rand air kerma incident on the patient's skin surface (Ka,e) at the different height of the patient couch for a C-arm system. Fluoroscopy and radiography were performed using a C-arm system (Ultimax-i, Canon Medical Systems, Japan) and a over-couch tube system (CUREVISTA Open, Fujifilm Healthcare, Japan).Ka,ewas measured by an ion chamber placed on the entrance surface of the phantom. Kerma-area product (PKA) andKa,rwere measured by a built-inPKAmeter and displayed on the fluoroscopy system.Ka,edecreased whileKa,rincreased as the patient couch moved away from the focal spot. The uncertainty of theKa,e/Ka,rratio due to the different height of the patient couch was estimated to be 75%-94%.Ka,rmay not accurately representKa,e.PKAwas a robust DRL quantity that was independent of the patient couch height. We cautioned against optimising patient doses in ERCP with DRLs set in terms ofKa,rwithout considering the patient couch height of the C-arm system. Therefore, we recommend thatKa,ris an inappropriate DRL quantity in ERCP using the C-arm system.

Occupational radiation dose on the hand of assisting medical staff in diagnostic CT scans

Chronic radiation exposure increases the risk of skin damage of medical personnel engaged in radiology. However, hand dose measurements in computed tomography (CT) for diagnostic purposes have not been evaluated. The occupational radiation dose to the hands of CT assistants was herein investigated to evaluate its compliance with the equivalent dose limit for the hand (500 mSv/year). The occupational doses of nine CT assistants were measured in 89 cases (April 2017-May 2018) by installing radio-photoluminescence glass dosemeters (GD-302 M) (70-μm dose-equivalent conversion coefficient = 0.37) on the dorsal aspect of both hands. The occupational dose to the hand was the highest with head holding (right: 1.14 mSv/CT scan, left: 1.07 mSv/CT scan). Considering the results for annual work, even for head holding, the hand dose of the CT-assisting personnel was insignificant. However, CT assistants should be mindful of the possibility of locally higher doses to hands.

Eye Lens Radiation Dose to Nurses during Cardiac Interventional Radiology: An Initial Study

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses.

Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Conventional and Wide-Field High-Resolution Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Cerebral Angiography: A Phantom Study

There has been an increase in the use of interventional neuroradiology procedures because of their non-invasiveness compared to surgeries and the improved image quality of fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and rotational angiography. Although cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are inferior to multi-detector CT images in terms of low-contrast detectability and lower radiation doses, CBCT scans are frequently performed because of their accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of two different high-resolution CBCTs (HR CBCT): conventional (C-HR CBCT) and wide-field HR CBCT (W-HR CBCT). The modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used to evaluate the image quality. On comparing the MTF of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and that of W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix, the MTF of W-HR CBCT with the 384 × 384 matrix was larger. A comparison of the NPS and CNR of C-HR CBCT with a 256 × 256 matrix and W-HR CBCT with a 384 × 384 matrix showed that both values were comparable. The reference air kerma values were equal for C-HR CBCT and W-HR CBCT; however, the value of the kerma area product was 1.44 times higher for W-HR CBCT compared to C-HR CBCT. The W-HR CBCT allowed for improved spatial resolution while maintaining the image noise and low-contrast detectability by changing the number of image matrices from 256 × 256 to 384 × 384. Our study revealed the image characteristics and radiation dose of W-HR CBCT. Given its advantages of low-contrast detectability and wide-area imaging with high spatial resolution, W-HR CBCT may be useful in interventional neuroradiology for acute ischemic stroke.

Spatial Scattering Radiation to the Radiological Technologist during Medical Mobile Radiography

Mobile radiography allows for the diagnostic imaging of patients who cannot move to the X-ray examination room. Therefore, mobile X-ray equipment is useful for patients who have difficulty with movement. However, staff are exposed to scattered radiation from the patient, and they can receive potentially harmful radiation doses during radiography. We estimated occupational exposure during mobile radiography using phantom measurements. Scattered radiation distribution during mobile radiography was investigated using a radiation survey meter. The efficacy of radiation-reducing methods for mobile radiography was also evaluated. The dose decreased as the distance from the X-ray center increased. When the distance was more than 150 cm, the dose decreased to less than 1 μSv. It is extremely important for radiological technologists (RTs) to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient to reduce radiation exposure. The spatial dose at eye-lens height increases when the bed height is high, and when the RT is short in stature and abdominal imaging is performed. Maintaining sufficient distance from the patient is also particularly effective in limiting radiation exposure of the eye lens. Our results suggest that the doses of radiation received by staff during mobile radiography are not significant when appropriate radiation protection is used. To reduce exposure, it is important to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient. Therefore, RTs should bear this is mind during mobile radiography.

Associations among Health Status, Occupation, and Occupational Injuries or Diseases: A Multi-Level Analysis

PURPOSE

The present study used a hierarchical generalized linear model to explore the effects of physical and mental health and occupational categories on occupational injuries and diseases.

METHODS

The data were obtained from the Registry for Beneficiaries of the 2002-2013 National Health Insurance Research Database. The benefit categories involved adults with occupational injuries and diseases. Six major occupational categories and 28 subcategories were used. The main analysis methods were binary logistic regression (BLR) and hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM).

RESULTS

After adjustment for relevant factors, the three major occupation subcategories most likely to develop occupational injuries and diseases were Subcategory 12 "employees with fixed employers" of Category 1 "civil servants, employees in public or private schools, laborers, and self-employed workers"; Subcategory 2 "employees in private organizations" of Category 1; and "sangha and religionists" of Category 6 "other citizens." Conditions such as mental disorders and obesity increased the risk of occupational injuries and diseases.

CONCLUSION

A portion of the occupational categories had a higher risk of occupational injuries and diseases. Physical and mental health issues were significantly correlated with occupational injuries and diseases. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to use HGLM to analyze differences in occupational categories in Taiwan.

Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafeTM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R2 = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications.

Awareness of Medical Radiologic Technologists of Ionizing Radiation and Radiation Protection

Japanese people experienced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. criticality accident, it was found that many human resources are needed to respond to residents' concerns about disaster exposure in the event of a radiation disaster. Medical radiologic technologists learn about radiation from the time of their training, and are engaged in routine radiographic work, examination explanations, medical exposure counseling, and radiation protection of staff. By learning about nuclear disasters and counseling, we believe they can address residents' concerns. In order to identify items needed for training, we examined the perceptions of medical radiologic technologists in the case of different specialties, modalities and radiation doses. In 2016, 5 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, we conducted a survey of 57 medical radiologic technologists at two medical facilities with different specialties and work contents to investigate their attitudes toward radiation. 42 participants answered questions regarding sex, age group, presence of children, health effects of radiation exposure, radiation control, generation of X rays by diagnostic X ray equipment, and radiation related units. In a comparison of 38 items other than demographic data, 14 showed no significant differences and 24 showed significant differences. This study found that perceptions of radiation were different among radiology technologists at facilities with different specialties. The survey suggested the possibility of identifying needed training items and providing effective training.

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.

LENS EQUIVALENT DOSE OF STAFF DURING ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY: DOSE COMPARISON USING TWO TYPES OF DOSEMETERS

This study aimed to compare the lens equivalent dose (LED) measured during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using DOSIRIS™ as a dedicated dosemeter to that measured using glass badges to determine if glass badges can be alternative tools for LED measurement. LEDs for physicians during ERCP were measured using the DOSIRIS™ [3-mm dose equivalent] worn on the outer edge of the eyes and personal dosemeters (glass badges) [0.07-mm dose equivalent] worn on the right and left sides of the neck. The cumulated doses over 6 months for the left eye using DOSIRIS™ were 9.5 and 11.8 mSv for physicians A and B, whereas doses measured using glass badges were 7.5 and 11.6 mSv, respectively. The LEDs of the physicians at the left eye and left neck side showed almost similar values and were significantly correlated (r = 0.95; p < 0.01). For an accurate LED measurement during ERCP, using a dosemeter such as DOSIRIS™ is recommended, although similar LED estimation values were reported using glass badges on the left neck side.

Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians

Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk. Furthermore, radiation eye injury (i.e., cataract) in IVR staff have also been reported. It is crucial to protect the eyes of IVR physicians from X-ray radiation exposure. Many IVR physicians use protective Pb eyeglasses to reduce occupational eye exposure. However, the shielding effects of Pb eyeglasses are inadequate. We developed a novel shield for the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians. The novel shield consists of a neck and face guard (0.25 mm Pb-equivalent rubber sheet, nonlead protective sheet). The face shield is positioned on the left side of the IVR physician. We assessed the shielding effects of the novel shield using a phantom in the IVR X-ray system; a radiophotoluminescence dosimeter was used to measure the radiation exposure. In this phantom study, the effectiveness of the novel device for protecting against radiation was greater than 80% in almost all measurement situations, including in terms of eye lens exposure. A large amount of scattered radiation reaches the left side of IVR physicians. The novel radiation shield effectively protects the left side of the physician from this scattered radiation. Thus, the device can be used to protect the face and eyes of IVR physicians from occupational radiation exposure. The novel device will be useful for protecting the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians from radiation, and thus could reduce the rate of radiation injury. Based on the positive results of this phantom study, we plan to perform a clinical experiment to further test the utility of this novel radiation shield for IVR physicians.

Radiation Exposure and Protection in Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy

Computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy-guided procedures, such as those used for percutaneous biopsy, drainage, and radiofrequency ablation, are highly safe and quite often very successful due to the precision offered by the real-time, high-resolution tomographic images. Even so, international guidelines raised concerns regarding operator exposure to high doses of radiation during these procedures. In light of these concerns, operators conducting CT fluoroscopy-guided procedures not only need to be cognizant of the exposure risk but also exhibit sufficient knowledge of radiation protection. This paper reviews the current literature on experimental and clinical studies of radiation exposure doses to operators during CT fluoroscopy-guided procedures. In addition to the literature review, this paper also introduces different approaches that can be implemented to ensure appropriate radiation protection.

What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?

Protection against occupational radiation exposure in clinical settings is important. This paper clarifies the present status of medical occupational exposure protection and possible additional safety measures. Radiation injuries, such as cataracts, have been reported in physicians and staff who perform interventional radiology (IVR), thus, it is important that they use shielding devices (e.g., lead glasses and ceiling-suspended shields). Currently, there is no single perfect radiation shield; combinations of radiation shields are required. Radiological medical workers must be appropriately educated in terms of reducing radiation exposure among both patients and staff. They also need to be aware of the various methods available for estimating/reducing patient dose and occupational exposure. When the optimizing the dose to the patient, such as eliminating a patient dose that is higher than necessary, is applied, exposure of radiological medical workers also decreases without any loss of diagnostic benefit. Thus, decreasing the patient dose also reduces occupational exposure. We propose a novel four-point policy for protecting medical staff from radiation: patient dose Optimization, Distance, Shielding, and Time (pdO-DST). Patient dose optimization means that the patient never receives a higher dose than is necessary, which also reduces the dose received by the staff. The patient dose must be optimized: shielding is critical, but it is only one component of protection from radiation used in medical procedures. Here, we review the radiation protection/reduction basics for radiological medical workers, especially for IVR staff.

Assessment of Occupational Exposure in Medical Practice in the Region of Hohhot, China, for the Period 2004-2020

ABSTRACT

Individual monitoring is of great significance in efforts to protect the health of radiation workers and improve the level of radiation protection and management. This paper presents a retrospective analysis of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation from medical practice in the region of Hohhot, China, from 2004 to 2020. Results show that the average annual effective dose of occupationally exposed workers in medical practice significantly declined from 1.44 mSv in 2005 to 0.29 mSv in 2020 (Z = -5.23, P < 0.05). The number of medical radiation workers increased by 181%, the composition of radiation workers whose average annual effective dose exceeded 1 mSv decreased, and the number of radiation workers whose average annual effective dose was less than or equal to the minimum detection level (MDL) increased yearly over the 17-y study period. It was found that the dose of 1.106 mSv received by workers in interventional radiology is significantly higher than the doses of 0.52 mSv in dental radiology, 0.47 mSv in radiotherapy, and 0.33 mSv in all other medical uses (Z = 3.71, 9.13, 5.93, respectively; P < 0.05). The distribution ratios of workers in nuclear medicine and interventional radiology whose annual individual effective dose exceeded 5 mSv were 0.040 and 0.043, respectively, which are significantly higher than those in other occupational categories (χ2 = 307.11, P < 0.05). It was also shown that the average annual effective dose of 0.67 mSv in interventional radiology is significantly higher than that of 0.17 mSv in radiotherapy (Z = 3.39, P < 0.05) in 2020. According to these observations, the exposure of radiation workers in medical practice in Hohhot meets the requirements of the China standard. This study shows that the status of radiation workers in medical practice has obviously improved during the period 2004-2020. However, it is still necessary to focus on the protection of groups with high occupational exposure risk, and the continuous improvement of protection measures, monitoring means, and radiation workers' training, especially for the workers in the fields of interventional radiology and nuclear medicine.

Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy

It is important to evaluate the radiation eye dose (3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3)) received by physicians during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy, as physicians are close to the source of scattered radiation. In this study, we measured the radiation eye dose in Hp (3) received by one physician during CTF in a timeframe of 18 months using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS^TM. The physician placed eye dosimeters above and under their lead (Pb) eyeglasses. We recorded the occupational radiation dose received using a neck dosimeter, gathered CT dose-related parameters (e.g., CT-fluoroscopic acquisition number, CT-fluoroscopic time, and CT-fluoroscopic mAs), and performed a total of 95 procedures during CTF-guided biopsies. We also estimated the eye dose (Hp (3)) received using neck personal dosimeters and CT dose-related parameters. The physician eye doses (right and left side) received in terms of Hp (3) without the use of Pb eyeglasses for 18 months were 2.25 and 2.06 mSv, respectively. The protective effect of the Pb eyeglasses (0.5 mm Pb) on the right and left sides during CTF procedures was 27.8 and 37.5%, respectively. This study proved the existence of significant correlations between the eye and neck dose measurement (right and left sides, R² = 0.82 and R² = 0.55, respectively) in physicians. In addition, we found significant correlations between CT-related parameters, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs, and radiation eye doses (right and left sides, R² = 0.50 and R² = 0.52, respectively). The eye dose of Hp (3) received in CTF was underestimated when evaluated using neck dosimeters. Therefore, we suggest that the physician involved in CTF use a direct eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS for the accurate evaluation of their eye lens dose.

Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.