Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is often complex and involves long fluoroscopic times, with significant radiation exposure to medical staff. We investigated protective effects of an additional attached lead shielding device. The lead shielding device covered with the X-ray tube table (0.125 mm lead equivalent) during ERCP procedures. Fluoroscopy scatter radiation, with or without the lead shielding device, was measured using an acrylic phantom and a radiation survey meter. Measurements (25 points) were made at 50 cm intervals, at both 90 and 150 cm above the floor. We created radiation maps, with and without the additional lead shielding device. Moreover, we monitored annual staff exposure to radiation, before and after inclusion of the shielding device. Without additional shielding, exposure doses at the physician’s position, 90 and 150 cm above the floor, were 1940 and 4040 (μSv/h) respectively. In contrast, with the shielding device, corresponding exposures were 270 and 450 (μSv/h) at 90 and 150 cm, respectively. Scattered radiation was decreased by 86.1% at 90 cm or 88.9% at 150 cm. However, with additional lead shielding in the middle, rather than hung over the operating table, scattered radiation was decreased by only ~10%. The staff’s annual dose equivalents (DEs) were 12.2–29.8 mSv/year without and 3.8–8.4 mSv/year with lead shielding. With lead shielding, dose equivalent values for the staff were decreased by 41.0–76.5%. Thus, with additional lead shielding, properly used, scattered radiation would be decreased by ~90%, thus decreasing exposure doses to medical staff during ERCPs.

Videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) is considered the standard diagnostic imaging technique to investigate swallowing disorders and dysphagia. Few studies have been reported concerning the dose of radiation a patient receives and the scattering radiation dose received by a physician during VFSS. In this study, we investigated the dose of radiation (entrance skin dose, ESD) estimated to be received by a patient during VFSS using a human phantom (via a skin-dose monitor sensor placed on the neck of the human phantom). We also investigated the effective dose (ED) and dose equivalent (DE) received by a physician (wearing two personal dosimeters) during an actual patient procedure. One dosimeter (whole body) was worn under a lead apron at the chest, and the other (specially placed to measure doses received by the lens of the eye) outside the lead apron on the neck collar to monitor radiation doses in parts of the body not protected by the lead apron. The ESD for the patient was 7.8 mGy in 5 min. We estimated the average patient dose at 12.79 mGy per VFSS procedure. The physician ED and DE during VFSS were 0.9 mSv/year and 2.3 mSv/year, respectively. The dose of radiation received by the physician in this study was lower than regulatory dose limits. However, in accordance with the principle that radiation exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable, every effort should be made (e.g., wearing lead glasses) to reduce exposure doses.

ED estimation is dependent on both the monitoring method and the formula used. Therefore, it is important that comparisons among laboratories are based on the same monitoring method and same formula for calculating the ED.