Occupational Radiation Doses to Operators Performing Fluoroscopically-Guided Procedures

Abstract

In the past 30 years, the numbers and types of fluoroscopically-guided (FG) procedures have increased dramatically. The objective of the present study is to provide estimated radiation doses to physician specialists, other than cardiologists, who perform FG procedures. We searched Medline to identify English-language journal articles reporting radiation exposures to these physicians. We then identified several primarily therapeutic FG procedures that met specific criteria: well-defined procedures for which there were at least five published reports of estimated radiation doses to the operator, procedures performed frequently in current medical practice, and inclusion of physicians from multiple medical specialties. These procedures were percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), vertebroplasty, orthopedic extremity nailing for treatment of fractures, biliary tract procedures, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation (TIPS), head/neck endovascular therapeutic procedures, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We abstracted radiation doses and other associated data, and estimated effective dose to operators. Operators received estimated doses per patient procedure equivalent to doses received by interventional cardiologists. The estimated effective dose per case ranged from 1.7 – 56μSv for PCNL, 0.1 – 101 μSv for vertebroplasty, 2.5 – 88μSv for orthopedic extremity nailing, 2.0 – 46μSv for biliary tract procedures, 2.5 – 74μSv for TIPS, 1.8 – 53μSv for head/neck endovascular therapeutic procedures, and 0.2 – 49μSv for ERCP. Overall, mean operator radiation dose per case measured over personal protective devices at different anatomic sites on the head and body ranged from 19 – 800 (median = 113) μSv at eye level, 6 – 1180 (median = 75)μSv at the neck, and 2 – 1600 (median = 302) μSv at the trunk. Operators’ hands often received greater doses than the eyes, neck or trunk. Large variations in operator doses suggest that optimizing procedure protocols and proper use of protective devices and shields might reduce occupational radiation dose substantially.

Impact of latest generation cardiac interventional X-ray equipment on patient image quality and radiation dose for trans-catheter aortic valve implantations

“…The main study was approved by the University of Leeds Research Ethics Committee; recruitment took place in Leeds and Nottingham National Health Service Trust Hospitals and the British Cardiovascular Society 33 annual cardiology meeting exhibition hall. Clinical professionals with relevant experience with TAVI images were recruited.…”

Occupational radiation dose to eyes from interventional radiology procedures in light of the new eye lens dose limit from the International Commission on Radiological Protection

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] While there is good awareness and understanding of radiation risks to staff from IR procedures, a lack of reliable values for eye doses has persisted. Recent publications have attempted to address this and have established that dose to the eyes can be significant, particularly if the X-ray tube is positioned over the patient table and if no ceiling-mounted lead screen or lead glasses are used; [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] however, more data on lens dose, particularly in terms of H p (3) (personal dose equivalent at 3 mm in soft tissue), is required. 15,16 Revised International Commission on Radiological Protection dose limit In April 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published a statement on tissue reactions recommending an equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv per annum.…”

Measures to Reduce Radiation in a Modern Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory

“…Several radiation safety organizations such as International Commission on Radiological Protection and International Atomic Energy Agency have focused on spreading awareness on radiation protection and established tools and formulated recommendations toward reducing radiation to lowest possible levels. 36 In addition, they are responsible for regularly monitoring progress toward this goal.…”