1981
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.140.3.7280251
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Personnel exposure to radiation at some angiographic procedures.

Abstract: Personnel exposure to radiation was investigated during radiological procedures where x-ray shielding is particularly difficult. Ten percutaneous transhepatic cholangiographies, four percutaneous transhepatic portographies, and four coronary angiographies are included in the study. Exposure to radiation was measured at several anatomical sites for both the radiologist and the assisting nurse. Effective dose equivalents as proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) were estimated… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
2

Year Published

1985
1985
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For comparison HUDA & SANDISON (9) estimated the effective dose equivalent at a computed tomography of the chest to 4.8 mSv and of the abdomen to 2.6 mSv.The absorbed dose to the uterus is of special interest if the patient is pregnant. The estimated mean absorbed dose to the uterus of the 3 women and to the corresponding anatomic site of the 8 men was 4 (range 0 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. mGy.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For comparison HUDA & SANDISON (9) estimated the effective dose equivalent at a computed tomography of the chest to 4.8 mSv and of the abdomen to 2.6 mSv.The absorbed dose to the uterus is of special interest if the patient is pregnant. The estimated mean absorbed dose to the uterus of the 3 women and to the corresponding anatomic site of the 8 men was 4 (range 0 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. mGy.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the infusion according to our technique generally lasts only 3 to 5 min and the effective dose equivalent has roughly been estimated to 0.01 mSv per examination provided that a 0.25 mm lead apron is worn. This value should be compared with the maximum recommended annual permissible effective dose equivalent for occupationally exposed persons, which is 5000 times higher, i.e, 50 mSv (8). In addition, the personnel performing the infusions may have a reassuring effect on those patients who experience any discomfort during the examination.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…d) Dissecting aneurysmof the descending aorta with contrast filling of both the false and true lumen (150 HU) separated by the intimalflap (..-+). effective dose equivalent, was calculated using the weighting factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (8). The effective dose equivalent was then standardized for 15 scans, which is an approximate mean value of the number of scans during each of these examinations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As blindagens são utilizadas para deter a propagação das radiações, evitando, assim, exposições desnecessárias de pessoas envolvidas com equipamentos que emitem radiação ionizante. Sua eficiência é determinada pela capacidade de penetração dos raios X, assim como pela natureza e espessura do material de blindagem 2,10,21 . Os profissionais, na sala de exame, devem posicionar-se de tal forma que nenhuma parte do corpo, incluindo extremidades, seja atingida pelo feixe primário sem que esteja protegida por 0,5 mm equivalentes de chumbo e também se proteger da radiação espalhada por vestimenta ou barreiras protetoras com atenuação não inferior a 0,25 mm equivalentes de chumbo 15,17 .…”
Section: Sistema De Radioproteçãounclassified
“…Em virtude dos benefícios gerados pelo uso dos equipamentos de fluoroscopia nos diversos tipos de procedimentos relacionados às doenças vasculares, cuja principal característica é permitir a visualização em tempo real, guiando as manobras diagnósticas e/ou terapêuticas que estão sendo realizadas, seu uso freqüente é capaz de produzir efeitos nocivos à saúde dos profissionais envolvidos, já que os mesmos são considerados fontes artificiais de radiação ionizante 2,5 . Faz-se necessário, portanto, que o profissional deva se expor o menor tempo possível à radiação emitida pelo aparelho [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] .…”
Section: Introductionunclassified