A cross‐sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X‐ray equipment used in IVR

Inaba, Yohei; Chida, Koichi; Kobayashi, Ryota; Zuguchi, Masayuki

doi:10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6231

Cited by 30 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluation of radiation exposure received by patients in medicine is very important [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Furthermore, occupational radiation protection in medical workers is a critical problem [52][53][54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is important to evaluate the radiation eye dose (3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3)) received by physicians during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy, as physicians are close to the source of scattered radiation. In this study, we measured the radiation eye dose in Hp (3) received by one physician during CTF in a timeframe of 18 months using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRISTM. The physician placed eye dosimeters above and under their lead (Pb) eyeglasses. We recorded the occupational radiation dose received using a neck dosimeter, gathered CT dose-related parameters (e.g., CT-fluoroscopic acquisition number, CT-fluoroscopic time, and CT-fluoroscopic mAs), and performed a total of 95 procedures during CTF-guided biopsies. We also estimated the eye dose (Hp (3)) received using neck personal dosimeters and CT dose-related parameters. The physician eye doses (right and left side) received in terms of Hp (3) without the use of Pb eyeglasses for 18 months were 2.25 and 2.06 mSv, respectively. The protective effect of the Pb eyeglasses (0.5 mm Pb) on the right and left sides during CTF procedures was 27.8 and 37.5%, respectively. This study proved the existence of significant correlations between the eye and neck dose measurement (right and left sides, R2 = 0.82 and R2 = 0.55, respectively) in physicians. In addition, we found significant correlations between CT-related parameters, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs, and radiation eye doses (right and left sides, R2 = 0.50 and R2 = 0.52, respectively). The eye dose of Hp (3) received in CTF was underestimated when evaluated using neck dosimeters. Therefore, we suggest that the physician involved in CTF use a direct eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS for the accurate evaluation of their eye lens dose.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the wide acceptance of IVR procedures, such as PCI, has led to increasing numbers of interventions being performed, radiation exposures from IVR are conclusively higher, exposing both the IVR staff and the patient to high radiation doses. [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.

show abstract

“…It is important to keep an appropriate balance between image quality (contrast) and radiation dose in X-ray images [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Changes in the tube voltage and whether the grid is used affect the image contrast.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the Breast Cancer Risk and Radiation Dose of Radiography for Scoliosis in Children: A Phantom Study

Nemoto

Chida

2020

Diagnostics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full-spinal radiographs (FRs) are often the first choice of imaging modality in the investigation of scoliosis. However, FRs are strongly related to breast cancer occurrence due to multiple large-field radiographic examinations taken during childhood and adolescence, which may increase the risk for breast cancer in adulthood among women with scoliosis. The purpose of this study was to consider various technical parameters to reduce the patient radiation dose of FRs for scoliosis. To evaluate breast surface doses (BSDs) in FRs, radio photoluminescence dosimeters were placed in contact with a child phantom. Using the PC-based Monte Carlo (PMC) program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations, the breast organ dose (BOD) and the effective dose were calculated by performing Monte Carlo simulations using mathematical phantom models. The BSDs in the posteroanterior (PA) view were 0.15–0.34-fold those in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The effective dose in the PA view was 0.4–0.61-fold that in the AP view. BSD measurements were almost equivalent to the BODs obtained using PMC at all exposure settings. During FRs, the PA view without an anti-scatter grid significantly reduced the breast dose compared to the AP view with an anti-scatter grid.

show abstract

A cross‐sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X‐ray equipment used in IVR

Cited by 30 publications

References 29 publications

Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy

Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy

Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study

Reducing the Breast Cancer Risk and Radiation Dose of Radiography for Scoliosis in Children: A Phantom Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About