These findings demonstrate a dose dependent increased risk of posterior lens opacities for interventional cardiologists and nurses when radiation protection tools are not used. While study of a larger cohort is needed to confirm these findings, the results suggest ocular radio-protection should be utilized.

An increasing number of medical specialists are using fluoroscopy outside imaging departments, but there has been general neglect of radiological protection coverage of fluoroscopy machines used outside imaging departments. Lack of radiological protection training of those working with fluoroscopy outside imaging departments can increase the radiation risk to workers and patients. Procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair, renal angioplasty, iliac angioplasty, ureteric stent placement, therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography,and bile duct stenting and drainage have the potential to impart skin doses exceeding Gy. Although tissue reactions among patients and workers from fluoroscopy procedures have, to date, only been reported in interventional radiology and cardiology,the level of fluoroscopy use outside imaging departments creates potential for such injuries.A brief account of the health effects of ionising radiation and protection principles is presented in Section 2. Section 3 deals with general aspects of the protection of workers and patients that are common to all, whereas specific aspects are covered in Section 4 for vascular surgery, urology, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology,gastroenterology and hepatobiliary system, and anaesthetics and pain management.Although sentinel lymph node biopsy involves the use of radio-isotopic methods rather than fluoroscopy, performance of this procedure in operating theatres is covered in this report as it is unlikely that this topic will be addressed in another ICRP publication in coming years. Information on radiation dose levels to patients and workers, and dose management is presented for each speciality.

When this paper was about to go to press, the International Commission on Radiological Protection released a statement recommending a change in the threshold dose for the eye lens and dose limits for eye for occupationally exposed persons. It is clear that the earlier published threshold for radiation cataract is no longer valid. Epidemiological studies among Chernobyl clean-up workers, A bomb survivors, astronauts, residents of contaminated buildings, radiological technicians and recent surveys of staff in interventional rooms indicate that there is an increased incidence of lens opacities at doses below 1 Gy. Nevertheless, eye lens dosimetry is at a primitive stage and needs to be developed further. Despite uncertainties concerning dose threshold and dosimetry, it is possible to significantly reduce the risk of radiation cataract through the use of appropriate eye protection. By increasing awareness among those at risk and better adoption and increased usage of protective measures, radiation cataract can become preventable despite lowering of dose limits.

Background: Recent studies have reported a significant increase in eye lens opacities among staff in the cardiac catheterization laboratory but indicated further studies are needed to confirm the findings. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of opacities in eyes of cardiologists, radiographers and nurses working in interventional cardiology. Methods: The eyes of 52 staff in interventional cardiology facilities and 34 age- and sex-matched unexposed controls were screened in a cardiology conference held in Kuala Lumpur by dilated slit-lamp examination, and posterior lens changes were graded. Individual cumulative lens X-ray exposures were calculated from responses to a questionnaire in terms of workload and working practice. Results: The prevalence of posterior lens opacities among interventional cardiologists was 53%, while in nurses and radiographers it was 45%. Corresponding relative risks were 2.6 (95% CI: 1.2–5.4) and 2.2 (95% CI: 0.98–4.9), for interventional cardiologists and support staff, respectively. Conclusions: This study confirms a statistically significant increase in radiation-associated posterior lens changes in the eyes of interventional cardiology staff.

The overall uncertainty associated with the use of XR-RV3 films to determine skin dose in the interventional environment can realistically be estimated to be around 20% (k = 1). This uncertainty can be reduced to within 5% if carefully monitoring scanner, film, and fitting-related errors or it can easily increase to over 40% if minimal care is not taken. This work demonstrates the importance of appropriate calibration, reading, fitting, and other film-related and scan-related processes, which will help improve the accuracy of skin dose measurements in interventional procedures.