Exposition der Augenlinse des Untersuchers und Effizienz der Strahlenschutzmittel bei fluoroskopischen Interventionen

Galster, Marco; Guhl, C.; Uder, M; Adamus, R.

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1330728

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, results were also extracted from broader studies, in which other complementary or correlated topics were additionally investigated or Monte Carlo or on-field evaluations were additionally performed [11,16,17,20,21,26,28,34,38,40].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of experimental estimates for the protection afforded by eyewear for interventional x-ray staff

Petrucci¹

2020

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to systematise all published experimental results for the dose reduction factor (DRF) offered by leaded eyewear on clinicians performing interventional procedures. We aim to present a comprehensive analysis of the issue and a comparison of the various equipment models at different exposure geometries. The main purpose of the paper is, however, to clarify the best choice for the DRF within the possible diverse contexts and approaches to eye lens dose assessment. Evidence has been obtained that the lowest estimates of DRF are associated with larger scatter incidence angles and that, except for the slightly better performance exhibited by wraparound eyeglasses, there is no real distinction between the DRFs for the different equipment categories. The dataset as a whole confirms that, when measurements for the concerned eyewear model and irradiation conditions are unattainable, assuming DRF = 2 represents an adequately conservative choice. Nonetheless, this value includes only 17% of all results from the literature, whereas their histogram follows a distribution skewed towards higher values, represented by a median equal to 5. Therefore, if more realistic dose reconstructions are necessary, such as for purposes of epidemiological investigations or compensation decisions, the adoption of this central tendency index appears to be more reasonable. The complexity of characterising the DRF behaviour as a function of the various exposure factors reinforces the consideration of a statistical approach to eye lens dose assessment as a viable alternative. In this perspective, assuming for DRF a lognormal distribution with parameters and which has been verified to satisfactorily approximate the literature data distribution, should be deemed to be an appropriate option.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of experimental estimates for the protection afforded by eyewear for interventional x-ray staff

Petrucci¹

2020

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the wearing of radiation protection glasses is a current topic of discussion as reflected in the study by Lynskey et al in which only 54.2 % of all surveyed radiologists stated that they wear protective glasses during an intervention [33]. Phantom experiments were able to show that the eye lens local dose can be reduced from 66.7 % to 96.0 % (from 0.32 mSv/h to 0.04 mSv/h as an example [18]) with a favorable X-ray tube angle and head position [17,19]. However, this reduction is not the same for both eyes.…”

Section: Radiation Protection Glasses and Visorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their study Fetterly et al were able to show that the eye facing away from the scatter radiation is not protected at all in an experimental test setup of an angiographic examination [45]. The main reasons for these results are the orientation of the examiner's head in relation to the source of the scatter radiation and the fit of the glasses [17]. In their clinical studies, Van Rooijen und Merce et al show that a radiation reduction for the eye lenses of 50 % can be achieved by wearing radiation protection glasses or of 82.5 % when used in combination with a mobile lead glass screen [22,46].…”

Section: Radiation Protection Glasses and Visorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only additional lateral shielding can result in further radiation protection since scatter radiation usually comes laterally from below. Galster et al were able to show that glasses and visors achieve a lens dose reduction of approximately 85 -90 % [17] although visors only have a lead equivalent of 0.1 mm in contrast to 0.5 mm or even 0.75 mm in the case of glasses. This is because visors have a greater surface area and thus reduce the exposure of personnel to scatter radiation in the region of the head by providing better shielding (▶ Fig.…”

Section: Radiation Protection Glasses and Visorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personal Radiation Protection and Corresponding Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology: An Overview and Future Developments

König

Etzel

Thomas

et al. 2019

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The increasing number of minimally invasive fluoroscopy-guided interventions is likely to result in higher radiation exposure for interventional radiologists and medical staff. Not only the number of procedures but also the complexity of these procedures and therefore the exposure time as well are growing. There are various radiation protection means for protecting medical staff against scatter radiation. This article will provide an overview of the different protection devices, their efficacy in terms of radiation protection and the corresponding dosimetry. Method The following key words were used to search the literature: radiation protection, eye lens dose, radiation exposure in interventional radiology, cataract, cancer risk, dosimetry in interventional radiology, radiation dosimetry. Results and Conclusion Optimal radiation protection always requires a combination of different radiation protection devices. Radiation protection and monitoring of the head and neck, especially of the eye lenses, is not yet sufficiently accepted and further development is needed in this field. To reduce the risk of cataract, new protection glasses with an integrated dosimeter are to be introduced in clinical routine practice. Key Points: Citation Format

show abstract

“…Abb. 4b; [3]). Bezüglich der Effizienz der Bleiglasbrillen und -visiere ergaben sich in der Arbeit von Galster et al [3] …”

Section: Strahlenschutz Der Augenunclassified

Strahlenschutz in der interventionellen Radiologie

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of ionizing radiation in medicine seems to be a safe procedure for patients as well as for occupational exposition to personnel. The developments in interventional radiology with fluoroscopy and dose-intensive interventions require intensified radiation protection. It is recommended that all available tools should be used for this purpose. Besides the options for instruments, x‑ray protection at the intervention table must be intensively practiced with lead aprons and mounted lead glass. A special focus on eye protection to prevent cataracts is also recommended. The development of cataracts might no longer be deterministic, as confirmed by new data; therefore, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has lowered the threshold dose value for eyes from 150 mSv/year to 20 mSv/year. Measurements show that the new values can be achieved by applying all X‑ray protection measures plus lead-containing eyeglasses.

show abstract

Exposition der Augenlinse des Untersuchers und Effizienz der Strahlenschutzmittel bei fluoroskopischen Interventionen

Cited by 14 publications

References 1 publication

Review of experimental estimates for the protection afforded by eyewear for interventional x-ray staff

Review of experimental estimates for the protection afforded by eyewear for interventional x-ray staff

Personal Radiation Protection and Corresponding Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology: An Overview and Future Developments

Strahlenschutz in der interventionellen Radiologie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About