Influence of safety glasses, body height and magnification on the occupational eye lens dose during pelvic vascular interventions: a phantom study.
Cataract
Eye protective devices
Fluoroscopy
Phantoms imaging
Thermoluminescent dosimetry
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
10
06
2021
accepted:
02
08
2021
revised:
19
07
2021
pubmed:
9
9
2021
medline:
15
2
2022
entrez:
8
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
By simulating a fluoroscopic-guided vascular intervention, two differently designed radiation safety glasses were compared. The impacts of changing viewing directions and body heights on the eye lens dose were evaluated. Additionally, the effect of variable magnification levels on the arising scattered radiation was determined. A phantom head, replacing the operator's head, was positioned at different heights and rotated in steps of 20° in the horizontal plane. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD), placed in the left orbit of the phantom, detected eye lens doses under protected and completely exposed conditions. In a second step, radiation dose values with increasing magnification levels were detected by RaySafe i3 dosimeters. Changing eye levels and head rotations resulted in a wide range of dose reduction factors (DRF) from 1.1 to 8.5. Increasing the vertical distance between the scattering body and the protective eyewear, DRFs markedly decreased for both glasses. Significant differences between protection glasses were observed. Increasing magnification with consecutively decreasing FOV size variably reduced the dose exposure to the eye lens between 47 and 83%, respectively. The safety glasses in the study effectively reduced the dose exposure to the eye lens. However, the extent of the protective effect was significant depending on eye levels and head rotations. This may lead to a false sense of safety for the medical staff. In addition, the application of magnification reduced the quantity of scattering dose significantly. To ensure safe working in the Cath-lab, additional use of protective equipment and the differences in design of protective eyewear should be considered. • Eye lens dose changes with physical size of the interventionist and viewing direction. • The use of magnification during fluoroscopic-guided interventions reduces scattered radiation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34495352
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08231-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-08231-y
pmc: PMC8831265
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1688-1696Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
International Commission on Radiological Protection (Icrp) (2012) Annals of the ICRP 60. Compend Dose Coefficients based ICRP Publ 60. 130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2006.06.001
Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M et al (2008) Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol 168:620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn171
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn171
pubmed: 18664497
pmcid: 2727195
International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA safety standard series (1999) Occupational Radiation Protection. English. STI/PUB ; 1081. Safety standards series no. RS-G-1.1.
Thornton RH, Dauer LT, Altamirano JP, Alvarado KJ, Solomon SB (2010) Comparing strategies for operator eye protection in the interventional radiology suite. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1703–1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.07.019
doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2010.07.019
pubmed: 20920841
Jacob S, Donadille L, Maccia C et al (2013) Eye lens radiation exposure to interventional cardiologists: a retrospective assessment of cumulative doses. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 153:282–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncs116
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncs116
pubmed: 22764175
Wong JHD, Anem LEA, Tan S, Tan SK, Ng KH (2019) Eye lens dose of medical personnel involved in fluoroscopy and interventional procedures at a Malaysian Hospital. Phys Med 68:47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.11.007
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.11.007
pubmed: 31739145
Martin CJ, Magee JS (2013) Assessment of eye and body dose for interventional radiologists, cardiologists, and other interventional staff. J Radiol Prot 33:445–460. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/33/2/445
doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/33/2/445
pubmed: 23649355
Nickoloff EL (2011) Physics tutorial for residents: physics of flat-panel fluoroscopy systems. Radiographics 31:591–602. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.312105185
doi: 10.1148/rg.312105185
pubmed: 21415199
Austrian Standards International. Austrian Standards (2021) https://www.austrian-standards.at Accessed Jul 15 2021
White DR, Booz J, Griffith RV, Spokas JJ, Wilson IJ (1989) Report 44. Vol os23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os23.1.report44
Sina S, Zeinali B, Karimipourfard M, Lotfalizadeh F, Sadeghi M, Faghihi R (2014) SU-E-I-09: application of LiF:Mg, Cu (TLD-100H) dosimeters for in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 41:131–131. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4887957
doi: 10.1118/1.4887957
Magee JS, Martin CJ, Sandblom V et al (2014) Derivation and application of dose reduction factors for protective eyewear worn in interventional radiology and cardiology. J Radiol Prot. 34(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/34/4/811
Domienik J, Brodecki M (2016) The effectiveness of lead glasses in reducing the doses to eye lenses during cardiac implantation procedures performed using X-ray tubes above the patient table. J Radiol Prot 36:N19–N25. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/N19
doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/N19
pubmed: 27021615
Albayati MA, Kelly S, Gallagher D et al (2015) Editor’s choice - Angulation of the C-arm during complex endovascular aortic procedures increases radiation exposure to the head. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 49:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.032
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.032
pubmed: 25655805
Koenig AM, Etzel R, Greger W et al (2020) Protective efficacy of different ocular radiation protection devices: a phantom study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 43:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02319-1
doi: 10.1007/s00270-019-02319-1
pubmed: 31489475
Mao L, Liu T, Caracappa PF et al (2019) Influences of operator head posture and protective eyewear on eye lens doses in interventional radiology: a Monte Carlo Study. Med Phys 46:2744–2751. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13528
doi: 10.1002/mp.13528
pubmed: 30955211
Principi S, Farah J, Ferrari P, Carinou E, Clairand I, Ginjaume M (2016) The influence of operator position, height and body orientation on eye lens dose in interventional radiology and cardiology: Monte Carlo simulations versus realistic clinical measurements. Phys Med 32:1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.08.010
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.08.010
pubmed: 27554367
Panuccio G, Greenberg RK, Wunderle K, Mastracci TM, Eagleton MG, Davros W (2011) Comparison of indirect radiation dose estimates with directly measured radiation dose for patients and operators during complex endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg 53:885-894.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.10.106
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.10.106
pubmed: 21292431
Gkanatsios NA, Huda W, Peters KR, Avenue G (2011) How does magnification affect image quality and patient dose in digital subtraction angiography? Med Imaging 2001 Phys Med Imaging 4320:326–330. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.430927
Nowak M, Carbonez P, Krauss M, Verdun FR, Damet J (2020) Characterisation and mapping of scattered radiation fields in interventional radiology theatres. Sci Rep 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75257-5
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75257-5
Pereira JS, Pereira MF, Rangel S et al (2019) Type testing of LiF:Mg, Cu, P (TLD-100H) whole-body dosemeters for the assessment of Hp(10) and Hp(0.07). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 184:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncy202
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncy202
pubmed: 30496554
Fluke Biomedical. RaySafe i3 (2021) https://www.flukebiomedical.com/products/dosimeters/real-time-personal-dosimetry/raysafe-i3-real-time-dose-monitoring-system Accessed Jul 15 2021