An initial investigation of a wireless patient radiation dosimeter for use in interventional radiology

Inaba, Yohei; Chida, Koichi; Murabayashi, Yuuki; Endo, Mime; Otomo, Kazuki; Zuguchi, Masayuki

doi:10.1007/s12194-020-00575-2

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have evaluated the radiation dose to patients and IVR staff, and methods to reduce exposure [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. We also previously evaluated exposure of patients and staff to radiation in our IVR laboratory [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk. Furthermore, radiation eye injury (i.e., cataract) in IVR staff have also been reported. It is crucial to protect the eyes of IVR physicians from X-ray radiation exposure. Many IVR physicians use protective Pb eyeglasses to reduce occupational eye exposure. However, the shielding effects of Pb eyeglasses are inadequate. We developed a novel shield for the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians. The novel shield consists of a neck and face guard (0.25 mm Pb-equivalent rubber sheet, nonlead protective sheet). The face shield is positioned on the left side of the IVR physician. We assessed the shielding effects of the novel shield using a phantom in the IVR X-ray system; a radiophotoluminescence dosimeter was used to measure the radiation exposure. In this phantom study, the effectiveness of the novel device for protecting against radiation was greater than 80% in almost all measurement situations, including in terms of eye lens exposure. A large amount of scattered radiation reaches the left side of IVR physicians. The novel radiation shield effectively protects the left side of the physician from this scattered radiation. Thus, the device can be used to protect the face and eyes of IVR physicians from occupational radiation exposure. The novel device will be useful for protecting the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians from radiation, and thus could reduce the rate of radiation injury. Based on the positive results of this phantom study, we plan to perform a clinical experiment to further test the utility of this novel radiation shield for IVR physicians.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The occupational exposure and patient radiation dose are important issues [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Especially, interventional radiology (IVR) procedures deliver high radiation doses to both the physician and patient [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Furthermore, IVR physicians are at high risk of radiation-induced injury [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…In particular, which require the integration of novel modalities to reduce the maximum skin dose during radiation exposure (Dskin, max) [6,7]. Additionally, previous studies have demonstrated that an estimation of Dskin, max can be undertaken using various modalities including metaloxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors, four photoluminescence sensors attached to the back of the patients, and wireless dosimeter modalities [8][9][10][11]. Although this approach has been previously reported to have various benefits when estimating the real-time data of radiation exposure, subsequent evidence indicates that it had some limitations which restrict its benefits to specific institutions [12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%