Staff Dosimetry Protocols in Interventional Radiology

Padovani, R.; Foti, C.; Malisan, M.R.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006471

Cited by 36 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main reason is that IC permits specialists to avoid complicated invasive surgery, which some patients might not tolerate because of age factors or pathology, and this results in a reduced length of hospital stay in comparison with coronary artery bypass grafting [5]. However, interventional procedures can involve long fluoroscopic times, cine acquisitions and operation of fluoroscopic equipment in high-dose fluoroscopic modes, which can lead to high patient and staff doses [6,7]. Interventional procedures require the physician and assisting personnel to remain close to the patient, which is the main source of scattered radiation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures

Efstathopoulos

Pantos²,

Andreou³

et al. 2011

BJR

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine occupational dose levels in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. Methods: The study covered a sample of 25 procedures and monitored occupational dose for all laboratory personnel. Each individual wore eight thermoluminescent dosemeters next to the eyes, wrists, fingers and legs during each procedure. Radiation protection shields used in each procedure were recorded. Results: The highest doses per procedure were recorded for interventionists at the left wrist (average 485 mSv, maximum 5239 mSv) and left finger (average 324 mSv, maximum 2877 mSv), whereas lower doses were recorded for the legs (average 124 mSv, maximum 1959 mSv) and the eyes (average 64 mSv, maximum 1129 mSv). Doses to the assisting nurses during the intervention were considerably lower; the highest doses were recorded at the wrists (average 26 mSv, maximum 41 mSv) and legs (average 18 mSv, maximum 22 mSv), whereas doses to the eyes were minimal (average 4 mSv, maximum 16 mSv). Occupational doses normalised to kerma area product (KAP) ranged from 11.9 to 117.3 mSv/1000 cGy cm 2 and KAP was poorly correlated to the interventionists' extremity doses. Conclusion: Calculation of the dose burden for interventionists considering the actual number of procedures performed annually revealed that dose limits for the extremities and the lenses of the eyes were not exceeded. However, there are cases in which high doses have been recorded and this can lead to exceeding the dose limits when bad practices are followed and the radiation protection tools are not properly used.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures

Efstathopoulos

Pantos²,

Andreou³

et al. 2011

BJR

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although, the annual estimated dose obtained from the workload (HSG) is greater than 3/10 th of the limit, it is not unlikely that the radiologists also perform other procedures such as interventional radiology and cardiac radiological procedures which involve long fluoroscopic times, hence leading to higher doses (11,12). Besides, doses to the legs and lens of the eyes were not measured.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nnamdi Norbert Jibirigerian Hospitals

Jibiri¹,

Akintunde²,

Dambele³

et al. 2016

Mirt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The practice of regular dose measurement helps to ascertain the level of occupational dose delivered to the staff involved in diagnostic procedures. This study was carried out to evaluate the dose exposed to the hands of radiologists and a radiologic technologist carrying out HSG and radionuclide bone scan examinations in several hospitals in Nigeria.Methods:Radiation doses exposed to the hands of radiologists and a technician carrying out hysterosalpingography (HSG) and bone scan procedures were measured using calibrated thermo-luminescent dosimeters. Five radiologists and a radiologic technologist were included in the study for dose measurement.Results:The study indicates that each radiologist carried out approximately 2 examinations per week with the mean dose ranging between 0.49-0.62 mSv per week, resulting in an annual dose of 191 mSv. Similarly, the occupational dose delivered to both the left and right hands of a radiologic technologist administering 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (MDP) without cannula and with cannula were 10.68 (720.2) and 13.82 (556.4) mSv per week (and per annum), respectively. It was determined that the left hand of the personnel received higher doses than their right hand.Conclusion:The estimated annual dose during HSG is far below the annual dose limit for deterministic effects, however, it is greater than 10% of the applicable annual dose limit. Hence, routine monitoring is required to ensure adequate protection of the personnel. The total annual dose received during the bone scan exceeds the annual dose limit for both hands, and the dose to either left or right hand is greater than the dose limit of 500 mSv/yr. The radiologists monitored are not expected to incur any deterministic effects during HSG examinations, however, accumulated doses arising from the scattered radiation to the eyes, legs, and neck could be substantial and might lead to certain effects. More staff are required to administer 99mTc-MDP in Nigerian institutions to prevent excessive doses to personnel.

show abstract

“…Mateya et al [63] and Kicken et al [46,64], Padovani et al [65] concluded that the official USA recommendations of NCRP-122 [16] lead to overestimation of effective dose by a factor of up to 3-4 for single dosimetry.…”

Section: More About the Parameter Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%