Impact of the Table Height and the Operator’s Height on the Level of Radiation Delivered to Interventional Cardiologists

Abstract

Interventional cardiologists count among the health professionals that are most exposed to ionising radiation. To minimise exposure, it is recommended that the patient be placed at the maximum distance possible from the X-ray source, but this recommendation has not been clinically validated. We aimed to investigate the impact of the average table height on the level of radiation delivered to cardiologists performing coronary interventions. The population for analysis included all invasive coronary procedures performed in our centre from March to June 2017. The primary endpoint was operator radiation exposure, as assessed using personal electronic dosimeters located on the operator’s left arm. In total, 225 invasive coronary procedures were analysed. When the average table height was 1126 mm or more, the operators received a radiation dose that was, on average, 53% lower than when the table was lower than 1126 mm. This reduction remained significant by multivariate analysis adjusted for the operator.

Association between distance from the radiation source and radiation exposure: A phantom‐based study

“…The effect of the distance of the patient's body from the X-ray source on operator exposure has been evaluated with conflicting reports. 4,5 Operator height and beam angulation have also been shown in observational studies to influence operator radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization laboratory procedures. 6,7 Due to advancements in technology as well as technique, the burden of radiation exposure as a result of some of these procedures has decreased over time.…”

Taller staff occupationally exposed to less radiation to the temple in cardiac procedures, but risk higher doses during vascular cases

“…The impact of doctor height on table height. Some authors have made the assumption that taller doctors would utilize a higher table position for ergonomic preference 20,35,36 , and this was corroborated by Faroux et al 37 . Although this presumption seems logical, the interdependence was examined in the local clinical environment before this premise was applied to the findings of this study.…”

Staff eye lens dose in interventional radiology and cardiology in Finland

“…Such estimation has several sources of uncertainty. In addition to the uncertainty of H p (10) measurements themselves, there are other factors affecting the conversion to eye lens dose such as the effect of operator height [30], dosemeter positioning [31] and the previously discussed variability in dose reduction of lead glasses, which contribute to the total uncertainty. The H p (3)/H p (10) ratios may vary between workplaces and individuals, due to differences in e.g., availability and consistency of use of ceilingmounted lead shields and other protective equipment, or differences in C-arm angulations or tube/detector placement.…”