A REVIEW OF TWO METHODS USED IN THE USA TO ASSESSH_EDURING FLUOROSCOPIC-BASED RADIOLOGY

Abstract

Dosemeter results for ∼81 500 people performing fluoroscopic and interventional radiology procedures were examined to identify differences between groups monitored either by using two dosemeters, one placed at the collar above the apron and a second placed under the apron on the torso (EDE1) or by using one single dosemeter placed at the collar above the apron (EDE2). The median annual HE was 0.17 mSv for those monitored using the EDE1 protocol and 0.26 mSv for the group using the EDE2 protocol. The EDE2 method was used most frequently with the EDE1 method preferred for those more highly exposed. Approximately, 22 % of dosemeter results for EDE1 were inconsistent with expected norms based on over and under apron dosemeter relationships.

ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures

“…In total, 102,199 observations refer to workers monitored with two dosimeters (one over and one under the apron) and 196,526 observations refer to workers monitored with a single dosimeter located over the apron at the collar. The outcome revealed mean values of estimated effective dose of 0.12 and 0.27 mSv, with median values of 0.03 and 0.1 mSv, respectively (Yoder and Salasky, 2016).…”

“…Distribution of effective dose (E) assessed by two dosimeters (one over and one under the apron) (top) and one dosimeter (over the apron) (bottom)(Yoder and Salasky, 2016).…”

Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

“…Additional exclusions were made on the basis of the expected relationship between the dose readings registered by the above-versus underapron badge. By using criteria reported by Yoder and Salasky (25), the expected relationships indicating proper wear of the badges are as follows:…”

“…All authors reviewed the manuscript. Salasky (25). Badge entries with dose readings that did not meet the expected relationships were excluded from all subsequent analyses.…”

On the scenario of passive dosimeters in personnel monitoring: Relevance to diagnostic radiology and fluoroscopy-based interventional cardiology

“…[ 12 13 ] These recommendations appear to have become mandatory in many countries as against the use of a single personal dosimeter worn under the protective lead apron on the trunk of persons. From the recent surveys,[ 14 15 ] it has been concluded that the dosimeters worn under the lead apron in interventional cardiology and interventional radiology practices, rarely encounter a measurable signal for the estimation of dose equivalent (mostly nil). The same should be valid for the entire diagnostic radiology.…”