No abstract

No abstract

The radiation environment encountered in space differs in nature from that on Earth, consisting mostly of highly energetic ions from protons up to iron, resulting in radiation levels far exceeding the ones present on Earth for occupational radiation workers. Since the beginning of the space era, the radiation exposure during space missions has been monitored with various active and passive radiation instruments. Also onboard the International Space Station (ISS), a number of area monitoring devices provide data related to the spatial and temporal variation of the radiation field in and outside the ISS. The aim of the DOSIS (2009DOSIS ( -2011 and the DOSIS 3D (2012-ongoing) experiments was and is to measure the radiation environment within the European Columbus Laboratory of the ISS. These measurements are, on the one hand, performed with passive radiation detectors mounted at 11 locations within Columbus for the determination of the spatial distribution of the radiation field parameters and, on the other, with two active radiation detectors mounted at a fixed position inside Columbus for the determination of the temporal variation of the radiation field parameters. Data measured with passive radiation detectors showed that the absorbed dose values inside the Columbus Laboratory follow a pattern, based on the local shielding configuration of the radiation detectors, with minimum dose values observed in the year 2010 of 195-270 lGy/day and maximum values observed in the year 2012 with values ranging from 260 to 360 lGy/day. The absorbed dose is modulated by (a) the variation in solar activity and (b) the changes in ISS altitude.

Background: Interventional cardiologists are occupationally exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation. The MAVIG X-ray protective drape (MXPD) is a commercially available light weight, lead-free shield placed over the pelvic area of patients to minimize operator radiation dose. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of the MXPD during routine cardiac catheterization, including percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized controlled study comparing operator radiation dose during cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (n=632) with or without pelvic MXPD. We measured operator radiation dose at 4 sites: left eye, chest, left ring finger, and right ring finger. The primary outcomes were the difference in first operator radiation dose (µSv) and relative dose of the first operator (radiation dose normalized for dose area product) at the level of the chest in the 2 groups. Results: The use of the MXPD was associated with a 50% reduction in operator radiation dose (median dose 30.5 [interquartile range, 23.0–39.7] µSv in no drape group versus 15.3 [interquartile range, 11.1–20.0] µSv in the drape group; P <0.001) and a 57% reduction in relative operator dose ( P <0.001). The largest absolute reduction in dose was observed at the left finger (median left finger dose for the no drape group was 104.9 [75.7–137.4] µSv versus 41.9 [32.6–70.6] µSv in the drape group; P <0.001). Conclusions: The pelvic MXPD significantly reduces first operator radiation dose during routine cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT04285944.

Measurements of doses to hands, legs and eyes are reported for operators in four different hospitals performing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. The results confirm that occupational doses can be high for interventional spine procedures. Extremity and eye lens doses were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters positioned on the ring fingers, wrists, legs and near the eyes of interventional radiologists and neurosurgeons, over a period of 15 months. Doses were generally larger on the left side for all positions monitored. The median dose to the left finger was 225 μSv per procedure, although a maximum of 7.3 mSv was found. The median dose to the right finger was 118 μSv, but with an even higher maximum of 7.7 mSv. A median left eye dose of 34 μSv (maximum 836 μSv) was found, while the legs received the lowest doses with a median of 13 μSv (maximum 332 μSv) to the left leg. Annual dose to the hand assessed by the cumulated doses almost reached the annual dose limit of 500 mSv, while annual dose to the eyes exceeded the eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv yr(-1). Different x-ray systems and radiation protection measures were tested, like the use of lead gloves and glasses, tweezers, cement delivery systems and a magnetic navigation system. These measurements showed that doses can be significantly reduced. The use of lead glasses is strongly recommended for protection of the eyes.

More and more anaesthetists are getting involved in interventional radiology procedures and so it is important to know the radiation dose and to optimise protection for anaesthetists. In this study, based on Monte Carlo simulations and field measurements, both the whole-body doses and eye lens dose of anaesthetists were studied. The results showed that the radiation exposure to anaesthetists not only depends on their workload, but also largely varies with their standing positions and beam projections during interventional procedures. The simulation results showed that the effective dose to anaesthetists may vary with their standing positions and beam projections to more than a factor of 10, and the eye lens dose may vary with the standing positions and beam projections to more than a factor of 200. In general, a close position to the bed and the left lateral (LLAT) beam projection will bring a high exposure to anaesthetists. Good correlations between the eye lens dose and the doses at the neck, chest and waist over the apron were observed from the field measurements. The results indicate that adequate arrangements of anaesthesia device or other monitoring equipment in the fluoroscopy rooms are useful measures to reduce the radiation exposure to anaesthetists, and anaesthetists should be aware that they will receive the highest doses under left lateral beam projection.

The formation of secondary high-energy neutrons in proton therapy can be a concern for radiation protection of staff. In this joint intercomparative study (CERN, SCK•CEN and IBA/IRISIB/ULB), secondary neutron doses were assessed with different detectors in several positions in the Proton Therapy Centre, Essen (Germany). The ambient dose equivalent H(*)(10) was assessed with Berthold LB 6411, WENDI-2, tissue-equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) and Bonner spheres (BS). The personal dose equivalent Hp(10) was measured with two types of active detectors and with bubble detectors. Using spectral and basic angular information, the reference Hp(10) was estimated. Results concerning staff exposure show H(*)(10) doses between 0.5 and 1 nSv/monitoring unit in a technical room. The LB 6411 showed an underestimation of H(*)(10), while WENDI-2 and TEPC showed good agreement with the BS data. A large overestimation for Hp(10) was observed for the active personal dosemeters, while the bubble detectors showed only a slight overestimation.

No abstract