This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

An augmented reality (AR) application to help medical staff involved in interventional radiology (IR) learn how to properly use ceiling-suspended radiation shielding screens was created, and its utility was tested from the perspective of learner motivation. Method: The distribution of scattered radiation in an angiography room was visualized with an AR application in three settings: when a ceiling-suspended radiation shielding screen is not used (incorrect); when there is a gap between the bottom edge of the shielding screen and the patient's torso (incorrect); and when there is no gap between the bottom edge of the shielding screen and the patient's torso (correct). This AR application was used by 33 medical staff, after which an Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) based on the John Keller's ARCS (four categories of Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) Motivation Model, consisting of 36items with responses on a 5-point (1-5) Likert scale, was conducted. Results: The overall score was a high 4.67 ± 0.30 (mean ± standard deviation). Physician's scores tended to be lower than those of other medical staff in the categories of Attention, Relevance, and Satisfaction (not statistically significant). Conclusions: The AR application to learn how to properly use ceiling-suspended radiation shielding screens was highly rated from the perspective of learner motivation.

We investigated occupational dose to the lens of the eye for CT-assisting personnel for diagnostic purposes using a radio-photoluminescent glass dosimeter (RPLD) and evaluate compliance with the new equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye (20 mSv/year). Further, we proposed the implementation of "multiple protective measures" and estimated its effect. Method: An eye lens dosimeter clip was developed specifically to attach RPLDs inside radiation safety glasses in an L-shape. Using a total of six RPLDs attached to the radiation safety glasses, the 3-mm dose-equivalent (H p (3)) to the lens of the eye for medical staff (n ¼ 11; 6 intensive care physicians, 2 pediatricians, 3 radiological technologists) who assisted patients during CT scan for "diagnostic" purpose (n ¼ 91) was measured. We evaluated the dose reduction efficiencies with radiation safety glasses and bag-valve-mask extension tube. We also estimated the protection efficiency with radiation protection curtain introduced in front of the staff's face via the phantom experiment. Results: Without wearing radiation safety glasses, H p (3) to the lens of the eye was greatest for intensive care physicians (0.49 mSv/procedure; allowing 40 procedures to be performed annually), followed by pediatricians (0.30 mSv/procedure; 66 procedures annually) and radiological technologists (0.28 mSv/procedure; 71 procedures annually). Use of each type of protective tools: radiation safety glasses (0.07-mm-Pb), bag-valve-mask extension tube (20 cm) and radiation protective curtain (0.25-mm-Pb), reduced H p (3) to the lens of the eye by 51%, 31% and 61%, respectively. Conclusion: Intensive care physicians perform most assisted ventilations with the bag-valve-mask during "diagnostic" CT scans, and may exceed the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye if radiation safety glasses are not worn. If "multiple protective measures" are implemented, compliance with the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye should be achievable without placing significant burdens on physicians or medical institutions.

A short curtain that improves on the low versatility of existing long curtains was developed as a dedicated radiation protective device for the over-table tube fluorographic imaging units. The effect of this short curtain in preventing cataracts was then examined. First, the physician lens dose reduction rate was obtained at the position of the lens. Next, the reduction rate in the collective equivalent dose for the lens of the physician’s eye was estimated. The results showed that lens dose reduction rates with the long curtain and the short curtain were 88.9% (literature-based value) and 17.6%, respectively, higher with the long curtain. In our hospital, the reduction rate in the collective equivalent dose for the lens of the physician’s eye was 9.8% and 17.6% with a procedures mixture, using the long curtain where technically possible and no curtain in all other procedures, and the short curtain in all procedures, respectively, higher with the short curtain. Moreover, a best available for curtains raised the reduction rate in the collective equivalent dose for the lens of the physician’s eye a maximum of 25.5%. By introducing the short curtain, it can be expected to have an effect in preventing cataracts in medical staff.

Interventional radiology (IR) physicians must be equipped with personal passive dosimeters and personal protective equipment (PPE); however, they are inconsistently used. Therefore, we aimed to explore practical measures to increase PPE usage and ascertain whether these measures could lead to an actual decrease in exposure doses to IR physicians. Dosimeters and PPE were visually inspected. Then, a pre-operative briefing was conducted as a direct intervention, and the use of dosimeters and PPE was verbally confirmed. Finally, the intervention effect was verified by measuring the use rates and individual exposure doses. Because of the intervention, the use rate markedly improved and was almost 100%. However, both the effective dose rate (effective dose/fluoroscopy time) and the lens equivalent dose rate (lens equivalent dose/fluoroscopy time) showed that the intervention led to a statistically significant increase in exposure (effective dose rate: p = 0.033; lens equivalent dose rate: p = 0.003). In conclusion, the proper use of dosimeters and PPE raised the radiation exposure values for IR physicians immediately after the intervention, which was hypothesized to be due to the inclusion of exposure overlooked to date and the changes in the dosimeter management method from a single- to a double-dosimeter approach.