Hybrid Operating Room System for the Treatment of Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Evaluation of the Radiation Dose Received by Patients

Haga, Yoshinori; Chida, Koichi; Sota, Masahiro; Kaga, Yuji; Abe, Matanobu; Inaba, Yohei; Suzuki, Masatoshi; Meguro, Takeshi; Zuguchi, Masayuki

doi:10.3390/diagnostics10100846

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interventional radiology (IVR) plays a major role in disease diagnosis and treatment. IVR is performed using X-ray imaging equipment, catheters, and needles [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff

Hattori

Inaba

Kato

et al. 2023

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafeTM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R2 = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications.

show abstract

“…Interventional radiology (IVR) plays a major role in disease diagnosis and treatment. IVR is performed using X-ray imaging equipment, catheters, and needles [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff

Hattori

Inaba

Kato

et al. 2023

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are increasingly being performed because of the significant advantages for patients [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. However, IVR procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk in both patients and IVR staff [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”

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

“…In Japan, since the new eye dose limit will be adopted on April 2021, the evaluation of occupational dose is important. Several studies have investigated the occupational dose to eye lens undergoing X-ray examinations, such as interventional radiology (IVR) [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians and nurses during CTIs in real-time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Radiation Dose to Eye Lenses in CT-Guided Interventions Using MDCT-Fluoroscopy

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions (CTIs), physicians are close to a source of scattered radiation. The physician and staff are at high risk of radiation-induced injury (cataracts). Thus, dose-reducing measures for physicians are important. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians in CTIs. This study evaluated the radiation dose to the physician and medical staff using multi detector (MD)CT-fluoroscopy, and attempted to understand radiation-protection and -reduction methods. The procedures were performed using an interventional radiology (IVR)-CT system. We measured the occupational radiation dose (physician and nurse) using a personal dosimeter in real-time, gathered CT-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, mAs, CT dose index (CTDI), and dose length product (DLP)), and performed consecutive 232 procedures in CT-guided biopsy. Physician doses (eye lens, neck, and hand; μSv, average ± SD) in our CTIs were 39.1 ± 36.3, 23.1 ± 23.7, and 28.6 ± 31.0, respectively. Nurse doses (neck and chest) were lower (2.3 ± 5.0 and 2.4 ± 4.4, respectively) than the physician doses. There were significant correlations between the physician doses (eye and neck) and related factors, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs (eye dose: r = 0.90 and neck dose: r = 0.83). We need to understand the importance of reducing/optimizing the dose to the physician and medical staff in CTIs. Our study suggests that physician and staff doses were not significant when the procedures were performed with the appropriate radiation protection and low-dose techniques.

show abstract

Hybrid Operating Room System for the Treatment of Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Evaluation of the Radiation Dose Received by Patients

Cited by 16 publications

References 44 publications

Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff

Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff

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

Occupational Radiation Dose to Eye Lenses in CT-Guided Interventions Using MDCT-Fluoroscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About