Strahlenexposition des Personals im Herzkatheterlabor

Boetticher, Heiner von; Meenen, Christiane; Lachmund, Jörn; Hoffmann, Wolfgang; Engel, H.-J.

doi:10.1078/0939-3889-00180

Cited by 12 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Zusätzlich sind in der Tabelle Werte für eine Schutzkleidung von 0,5 mm Pb einmal nur mit einem unteren, zum anderen mit einem kombinierten oberen und unteren Dauerschutz von 0,5 mm Pb enthalten. Für alle Anordnungen werden die Werte einmal ohne und einmal mit zusätzlichem Schilddrüsenschutz von 0,5 mm [16,17]. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Messvorschriften der Richtlinie [6] nur ungenügend an die Bedürfnisse in der Medizin angepasst sind; es wären Messvorschriften für die Personendosimetrie in der Rçntgendiagnostik wünschenswert, die ein mçgliches Unterschätzen der effektiven Dosis vermeiden ließen.…”

Section: Materials Und Methodeunclassified

“…B. im Herzkatheterlabor bei Verwendung eines unteren Dauerschutzes ohne oberen Dauerschutz der Fall ist, wenn das Personendosimeter am Gürtel getragen wird. Hierbei ergab sich eine Halbierung der Dosimeteranzeige gegenüber dem Wert in Brusthçhe[16]. Auf der anderen Seite kann eine relativ zur Dosimeteranzeige erhçhte effektive Dosis des Personals auch darauf beruhen, dass keine Rundum-Schutzkleidung getragen wird und Strahlung schräg von hinten oder von hinten einfallen kann.…”

unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wie konservativ ist die Abschätzung der effektiven Dosis durch die amtliche Personendosimetrie für das Personal in der Radiologie?

Boetticher

Lachmund²,

Hoffmann³

2007

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The official exposure monitoring algorithms for estimating the effective dose for occupationally exposed personnel are not always appropriate for typical situations in diagnostic radiology. Improved dose measurement protocols should avoid underestimation of the effective dose. The results presented herein provide an opportunity to derive more realistic effective dose values from personal dosimetry measurements.

show abstract

Section: Materials Und Methodeunclassified

unclassified

Wie konservativ ist die Abschätzung der effektiven Dosis durch die amtliche Personendosimetrie für das Personal in der Radiologie?

Boetticher

Lachmund²,

Hoffmann³

2007

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach

Lange

Boetticher

2005

Cathet Cardio Intervent

Self Cite

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controversial data have been published on the amount of radiation exposure during radial coronary procedures. We hypothesized that in the current era, high-volume operators with optimal technique would not be exposed to higher radiation doses during radial procedures. A total of 297 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization (195 elective diagnostic coronary angiograms and 102 elective coronary interventions) were prospectively assigned in a random fashion to the radial access (RA) or femoral access (FA). All procedures were performed by the same operator with vast experience in radial procedures and standard measures for radiation protection were used. Operator radiation exposure was measured with an electronic radiation dosimeter attached to the breast pocket of the operator on the outside of the lead apron and estimates of the ambient dose equivalent were derived. For coronary angiograms, fluoroscopy time (2.8 +/- 2.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 1.4 min; P < 0.001) and dose-area product (15.1 +/- 8.4 vs. 13.1 +/- 8.5 Gy x cm(2); P < 0.05) were increased by 18% and 15%, respectively, for RA vs. FA. Operator radiation exposure was 100% higher for the RA compared to the FA (64 +/- 55 vs. 32 +/- 39 microSv; P < 0.001). For coronary interventions, fluoroscopy time (11.4 +/- 8.4 vs. 10.4 +/- 6.8 min; P = NS) and dose-area product (46.3 +/- 28.7 vs. 51.0 +/- 29.4 Gy x cm(2); P = NS) for RA and FA were not statistically different. However, operator radiation exposure was increased by 51% for the RA compared to the FA (166 +/- 188 vs. 110 +/- 115 microSv; P < 0.05). This study demonstrates that the radial approach is burdened with a 100% increase in operator radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary catheterization procedures and a 50% increase during coronary interventions, provided that no special devices for radiation protection are used. Measurements of radiation dose, such as fluoroscopy time and dose-area product, substantially underestimate the disproportionate rise in radiation exposure. Special precautions are warranted to improve radiation protection during invasive coronary procedures via the radial approach.

show abstract

Radiation Protection in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Non-shielded Parts of the Body Contribute Significantly to the Effective Dose of the Operator

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strahlenexposition des Personals im Herzkatheterlabor

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

Wie konservativ ist die Abschätzung der effektiven Dosis durch die amtliche Personendosimetrie für das Personal in der Radiologie?

Wie konservativ ist die Abschätzung der effektiven Dosis durch die amtliche Personendosimetrie für das Personal in der Radiologie?

Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach

Radiation Protection in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Non-shielded Parts of the Body Contribute Significantly to the Effective Dose of the Operator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About