The value of protective head cap and glasses in neurointerventional radiology

Abstract

Under the specific conditions of this study, the limits currently applicable were respected. If a new eye lens dose limit is introduced, our results indicate it could be difficult to comply with, without introducing additional protective eyewear.

Radiation protection value to the operator from augmented reality smart glasses in interventional fluoroscopy procedures using phantoms

“…Our results also show that whilst wearing lead shielded glasses a 6.10fold reduction in dose rate to the lens is possible (p<0.05), which is in agreement with previous studies. 14,27 An important observation is the increased dose rate the clinician's eyes receive despite wearing lead shielded glasses, as the angle of gaze moves to 45º and 90º from 0º with no caudal head tilt. This was also seen in a previous study by Ekpo et al 14 who hypothesised that as the angle of gaze moves away from the scattering source, backscatter radiation from the glasses to the lens is received to the clinician.…”

Radiation-Induced Cerebro-Ophthalmic Effects in Humans

“…Nowadays, it is applied by several medical figures, including cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neuroradiologists, orthopedists and urologists, since it includes all activities using radiological or radionuclide devices for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes [81]. As already mentioned, although eyes and the brain are the most vulnerable organs, the protection provided is generally insufficient, as the protection of the ocular lenses by leaded glasses may be incomplete and that of the brain by radio-absorbent surgical cap minimal [83,84]. As a result, the eye-damaging effects of IR are one of the main health problems in interventional radiology.…”

“…In conclusion, it would be necessary to expand research studies on eyes and brain consequences of interventional radiology, as well as on the radioprotection devices and safety procedures aiming to contain these undesirable side effects. Indeed, although technology has provided major protective benefits both to physicians (and patients), currently radioprotection protocols are still ineffective and poorly uniform [83,85,86]. For this purpose, new predictive models of computational dosimetry could be useful and implemented [100].…”

“…For this purpose, new predictive models of computational dosimetry could be useful and implemented [100]. Furthermore, it would also be important to provide training courses on radioprotection and workers' safety for all interventional radiology workers, since they are often lacking and not standardized [83,86].…”

The Efficacy of Shielding Systems for Reducing Operator Exposure during Neurointerventional Procedures: A Real-World Prospective Study

“…Prior reports have demonstrated that exposure of patients and workers may not be negligible during interventional neuroradiology procedures, likely due to the complexity of some inter-ventions and the use of digital subtraction angiography and biplane fluoroscopy. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Patient exposure may be high enough to result in deterministic effects such as skin erythema and epilation, while both patients and physician operators are potentially at risk from the stochastic effects of this radiation, namely carcinogenesis. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Although multiple reports in the literature detail the risks of patient exposure to ionizing radiation during neurointerventional procedures, little has been published regarding exposure of the treating physician operators.…”