A PHANTOM STUDY TO DETERMINE THE OPTIMAL PLACEMENT OF EYE DOSEMETERS ON INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY STAFF

Comparison of shielding effects of over-glasses-type and regular eyewear in terms of occupational eye dose reduction

Given the new recommendations for occupational eye lens doses, various lead glasses have been used to reduce irradiation of interventional radiologists. However, the protection afforded by lead glasses over prescription glasses (thus over-glasses-type eyewear) has not been considered in detail. We used a phantom to compare the protective effects of such eyewear and regular eyewear of 0.07 mm lead-equivalent thickness. The shielding rates behind the eyewear and on the surface of the left eye of an anthropomorphic phantom were calculated. The left eye of the phantom was irradiated at various angles and the shielding effects were evaluated. We measured the radiation dose to the left side of the phantom using RPLDs attached to the left eye and to the surface/back of the left eyewear. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded good protection against x-rays from the left and below; the average shielding rates on the surface of the left eye ranged from 0.70-0.72. In clinical settings, scattered radiation is incident on physicians' eyes from the left and below, and through any gap in lead glasses. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded better protection than regular eyewear of the same lead-equivalent thickness at the irradiation angles of concern in clinical settings. Although clinical evaluation is needed, we suggest over-glasses-type Pb eyewear even for physicians who do not wear prescription glasses.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Peak Skin Doses and Lens Doses during Interventional Neuroradiology Using a Direct Measurement System

Objective

In interventional neuroradiology (INR), the evaluation of the peak skin dose (PSD) and lens dose is important because the patient radiation dose increases in cases in which the procedure is more difficult and complex. This study evaluated the radiation doses during INR procedures using a direct measurement system.

Methods

Radiation dose measurements during INR were performed in 332 patients with unruptured aneurysm (URAN), dural arteriovenous fistula (DAVF), and arteriovenous malformation (AVM). The PSD and bilateral lens doses were analyzed for each disease. The Pearson correlation test was used to determine whether the PSD and lens doses were linearly related to the reference air kerma (K_a,r).

Results

In all cases, the PSD and right and left lens doses were 2.36 ± 1.28 Gy, 114.2 ± 54.6 mGy, and 189.8 ± 160.3 mGy, respectively. The PSD and lens doses of the DAVF and AVM cases were significantly higher than those of the URAN case. The Pearson correlation test revealed statistically significant positive correlations between K_a,r and PSD, K_a,r and right lens dose, and K_a,r and left lens dose.

Conclusion

The characteristics of radiation dose in INR were clarified. Owing to the concern of increased radiation doses exceeding the threshold values in DAVF and AVM cases, protection from radiation is required. Simple regression analysis revealed the possibility of precisely predicting PSD using K_a,r.

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.

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.

Estimating radiation exposure of the brain of a physician with a protective flap in interventional radiology: A phantom study

PURPOSE

The efficiency of protective equipment for the brain has not been verified at the left anterior oblique (LAO) position, which is commonly used in clinical procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate radiation exposure of the brain in interventional radiology (IR) and the shielding ability of a new protective flap.

METHODS

We made a flap that combined a protective cap with a left lateral face shield. The flap was made of tungsten-containing rubber (TCR). An anthropomorphic head phantom was placed at the physician's position, and air kerma rates (μGy/min and μGy/15s) were measured by electronic dosimeter at three locations: the surface of the left side of the head, and the left and right temporal lobes with the protective cap and the flap in fluoroscopy and cine modes. The X-ray tube was at the lower left side of the physician, and its angles were LAO60 and LAO60CAU40. The tube voltage (95-125 kV), tube current (4.7-732 mA), and air kerma rate (27.8-1078 mGy/min) were automatically adjusted by the X-ray system. We obtained the cap and the flap shielding efficiencies.

RESULTS

In cine mode at LAO60CAU40, the shielding efficiencies on the surface of the left side of the head and left temporal lobe with the cap were 92.6% and 5.1%, respectively, and the corresponding shielding efficiencies with the flap were 92.5% and 86.1%, respectively. The flap can reduce radiation exposure of the brain more than the cap alone.

CONCLUSIONS

At the left anterior oblique in interventional radiology, the flap can reduce exposure to the brain.

Lens dose reduction with a bismuth shield in neuro cone-beam computed tomography: an investigation on optimum shield device placement conditions

This study aimed to determine the placement distance, number, and position of the bismuth shield for developing a lens protective device for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). To determine the dose reduction rate, the lens doses were measured using an anthropomorphic head phantom and a real-time dosimeter. The image quality assessment was determined by analyzing the change in the pixel value, caused by the bismuth shield, and the artifact index was calculated from the pixel value and image noise within various regions of interest in the head phantom. When the distance between the bismuth shield and the subject was increased, the image quality deteriorated less, but there was also a decrease in the lens dose reduction rate. Upon changing the number of bismuth shields from 1-ply to 2-ply, the dose reduction rate increased; however, there was a decrease in the image quality. Additionally, placing the bismuth shield outside of the subject improved the dose reduction rate without deteriorating the image quality. The optimum placement conditions of the bismuth shield were concluded as follows: positioned outside, placed 10 mm from the surface of the subject, and used a 1-ply bismuth shield. When these placement conditions were used, the lens dose reduction rate was 26.9 ± 0.36% (right-left average) for the "bismuth shield: separate". The protective device developed in this study will contribute to radiation dose reduction in CBCT scans.

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.

Novel pregnant model phantoms for measurement of foetal radiation dose in x-ray examinations

This study presents a comparison of novel pregnant model phantoms with a handmade phantom in terms of shape and radiation measurement points to determine which model is more suitable for measuring the foetal radiation dose during x-ray examinations. Novel pregnant model phantoms were constructed using an anthropomorphic phantom in combination with two differently-sized custom-made abdomen phantoms simulating pregnancy, which were constructed from a polyurethane resin. The size and shape of the polyurethane resin were designed based on abdominal sizes and shapes collected from the computed tomography examinations at 18 pregnant patients of one hospital. The handmade pregnant model phantom was constructed using an anthropomorphic phantom and a beach ball containing water. Compared with the handmade phantom, there were additional dose measurement points on the novel pregnant model phantoms. Our model phantoms improved upon the handmade phantom in terms of shape and radiation measurement points. We produced pregnant model phantoms that simulated the shapes and sizes of actual patients for the first time.

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

In computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions (CTIs), physicians are close to a source of scattered radiation. The physician and staff are at high risk of radiation-induced injury (cataracts). Thus, dose-reducing measures for physicians are important. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians in CTIs. This study evaluated the radiation dose to the physician and medical staff using multi detector (MD)CT-fluoroscopy, and attempted to understand radiation-protection and -reduction methods. The procedures were performed using an interventional radiology (IVR)-CT system. We measured the occupational radiation dose (physician and nurse) using a personal dosimeter in real-time, gathered CT-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, mAs, CT dose index (CTDI), and dose length product (DLP)), and performed consecutive 232 procedures in CT-guided biopsy. Physician doses (eye lens, neck, and hand; μSv, average ± SD) in our CTIs were 39.1 ± 36.3, 23.1 ± 23.7, and 28.6 ± 31.0, respectively. Nurse doses (neck and chest) were lower (2.3 ± 5.0 and 2.4 ± 4.4, respectively) than the physician doses. There were significant correlations between the physician doses (eye and neck) and related factors, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs (eye dose: r = 0.90 and neck dose: r = 0.83). We need to understand the importance of reducing/optimizing the dose to the physician and medical staff in CTIs. Our study suggests that physician and staff doses were not significant when the procedures were performed with the appropriate radiation protection and low-dose techniques.

Cardiac catheterization real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk of cancer

Cardiac catheterization procedure is the gold standard to diagnose and treat cardiovascular disease. However, radiation safety and cancer risk remain major concerns. This study aimed to real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence and mortality in operators. Coronary angiography (CA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), CA, and others (radiofrequency ablation, pacemaker and defibrillator implantation) procedures with different beam directions, were undertaken on x-ray angiography system. A real-time electronic personal dosimeter (EPD) system was used to measure the radiation dose of staff during all procedures. We followed the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report to estimate the LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality. Primary operators received radiation dose in CA with PCI, CA, and others procedures were 59.33 ± 95.03 μSv, 39.81 ± 103.85 μSv, and 21.92 ± 37.04 μSv, respectively. As to the assistant operators were 30.03 ± 55.67 μSv, 14.67 ± 14.88 μSv, and 4 μSv, respectively. LAR of all cancer incidences for staffs aged from 18 to 65 are varied from 0.40% for males to 1.50% for females. LAR of all cancer mortality for staffs aged from 18 to 65 are varied from 0.22% for males to 0.83% for females. Our study provided an easy, real-time and dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate LAR of cancer for staff during the cardiac catheterization procedures. The LAR for all cancer incidence is about twice that for cancer mortality. Although the radiation doses of staff are lower during each procedure, the increased years of service leads to greater radiation risk to the staff.

Performance of the DOSIRIS™ eye lens dosimeter

Monitoring and protecting of occupational eye doses in interventional radiology (IR) are very important matters. DOSIRIS™ is the useful solution to estimate the 3 mm dose-equivalent (Hp(3)), and it can be worn behind lead glasses. And DOSIRIS™, adjustable according to 3 axes, it is ideally placed as close to the eye and in contact with the skin. So, DOSIRIS™ will be suitable eye lens dosimeter. However, the fundamental characteristics of the DOSIRIS™ in the diagnostic x-ray energy domain (including that of IR x-ray systems) remain unclear. Here, we evaluated the performance of the dosimeter in that energy range. As a result, the DOSIRIS™ has good fundamental characteristics (batch uniformity, dose linearity, energy dependence, and angular dependence) in the diagnostic x-ray energy domain. We conclude that the DOSIRIS™ has satisfactory basic performance for occupational eye dosimetry in diagnostic x-ray energy settings (including IR x-ray systems).