This article expresses the current view of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) about radiation protection for endoscopic procedures, in particular endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Particular cases, including pregnant women and pediatric patients, are also discussed. This Guideline was developed by a group of endoscopists and medical physicists to ensure that all aspects of radiation protection are adequately dealt with. A two-page executive summary of evidence statements and recommendations is provided. The target readership for this Guideline mostly includes endoscopists, anesthesiologists, and endoscopy assistants who may be exposed to X-rays during endoscopic procedures.

No abstract

Monte Carlo calculations were used to investigate the efficiency of radiation protection equipment in reducing eye and whole body doses during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Eye lens doses were determined considering different models of eyewear with various shapes, sizes and lead thickness. The origin of scattered radiation reaching the eyes was also assessed to explain the variation in the protection efficiency of the different eyewear models with exposure conditions. The work also investigates the variation of eye and whole body doses with ceiling-suspended shields of various shapes and positioning. For all simulations, a broad spectrum of configurations typical for most interventional procedures was considered. Calculations showed that 'wrap around' glasses are the most efficient eyewear models reducing, on average, the dose by 74% and 21% for the left and right eyes respectively. The air gap between the glasses and the eyes was found to be the primary source of scattered radiation reaching the eyes. The ceiling-suspended screens were more efficient when positioned close to the patient's skin and to the x-ray field. With the use of such shields, the Hp(10) values recorded at the collar, chest and waist level and the Hp(3) values for both eyes were reduced on average by 47%, 37%, 20% and 56% respectively. Finally, simulations proved that beam quality and lead thickness have little influence on eye dose while beam projection, the position and head orientation of the operator as well as the distance between the image detector and the patient are key parameters affecting eye and whole body doses.

No abstract

No abstract