Protective Efficacy of Different Ocular Radiation Protection Devices: A Phantom Study

König, Alexander M.; Etzel, Robin; Greger, W; Viniol, Simon; Fiebich, Martin; Thomas, Rohit Philip; Mahnken, Andreas H.

doi:10.1007/s00270-019-02319-1

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been reported that the monitoring and protection of occupational dose to the eye lenses in various X-ray examinations is important [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. In this study, the scattered radiations near the gantry were approximately 3000 μSv/h.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Correct use of a ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield can reduce scatter radiation by a factor of 2 to 10 [ 22 , 23 ]. A ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield protects the head and neck as well as the eyes [ 24 ]. In our study, 95 participants stated that the examination rooms they used were fitted with ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is more important for lead glasses to fit well than to have a high lead equivalence so that they also shield radiation from below and the side [ 24 ]. In other studies, glasses with a lead equivalent of 0.5 mm combined with a large lens are recommended by interventional radiologists as a more adequate and effective protection of the eye lens [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology/Cardiology—Is State-of-the-Art Equipment Used?

Behr-Meenen

Boetticher

Kersten

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventional radiology/cardiology is one of the fields with the highest radiation doses for workers. For this reason, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published new recommendations in 2018 to shield staff from radiation. This study sets out to establish the extent to which these recommendations are observed in Germany. For the study, areas were selected which are known to have relatively high radiation exposure along with good conditions for radiological protection—interventional cardiology, radiology and vascular surgery. The study was advertised with the aid of an information flyer which was distributed via organisations including the German Cardiac Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie- Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e. V.). Everyone who participated in our study received a questionnaire to record their occupational medical history, dosimetry, working practices, existing interventional installations and personal protective equipment. The results were compared with international recommendations, especially those of the ICRP, based on state-of-the-art equipment. A total of 104 respondents from eight German clinics took part in the survey. Four participants had been medically diagnosed with cataracts. None of the participants had previously worn an additional dosimeter over their apron to determine partial-body doses. The interventional installations recommended by the ICRP have not been fitted in all examination rooms and, where they have been put in place, they are not always used consistently. Just 31 participants (36.6%) stated that they “always” wore protective lead glasses or a visor. This study revealed considerable deficits in radiological protection—especially in connection with shielding measures and dosimetric practices pertaining to the head and neck—during a range of interventions. Examination rooms without the recommended interventional installations should be upgraded in the future. According to the principle of dose minimization, there is considerable potential for improving radiation protection. Temporary measurements should be taken over the apron to determine the organ-specific equivalent dose to the lens of the eye and the head.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5] Cataract risk assessment is, therefore, important. 6 In radiotherapy, there is a guideline for assessing and managing radiation doses to the area surrounding the treated region. 7 The outof-field radiation doses should be evaluated to be able to protect surrounding organs at risk from radiation and to guide treatment planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of protective glasses on radiation dose to eye lenses during whole breast irradiation

Nakamura

Suzuki

Kato

et al. 2020

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The efficacy of radiotherapy for breast cancer has greatly improved owing to better irradiation methods. Radiotherapy aims to deliver therapeutic doses to predetermined target volumes while sparing surrounding healthy tissues. However, there are few reports on radiation exposure to eye lenses, and the recommended exposure limits to ocular lens have been substantially reduced in recent years. This study aimed to investigate the amount of radiation exposure to eye lenses using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) and determine whether wearing special protective devices to protect the eyes, as an organ at risk, during whole breast irradiation, is necessary. Methods This experiment used OSLDs on water‐equivalent phantom to measure the change in scattered radiation dose due to the difference of irradiation field while using 4‐ and 6‐MV photons of TrueBeam linear accelerator. Using a total treatment dose of 50 Gy, a target was positioned to approximate the breast, and a plan was formulated to deliver 2 Gy per treatment by tangential irradiation. The mean (SD) irradiation dose at the lens position outside the irradiation field was reported. Results The scattered radiation dose outside the irradiation field was more affected by the irradiation field size than by the radiation energy. The out‐of‐field irradiation dose with a larger field of view was higher than that with a smaller field of view. The use of 0.07‐ and 0.83‐mm‐thick lead shield protective glasses reduced the radiation dose by 56.1% (P < .001) and 55.6% (P < .001), respectively. Conclusions In this experimental model, the amount of radiation the eye was exposed to during whole breast irradiation was determined by the distance of the eye from the radiation field edge and by wearing protective glasses. In clinical practice, the protection offered by eyeglasses may reduce the risk of long‐term side effects and allow the use of higher intensive radiotherapy.

show abstract

Protective Efficacy of Different Ocular Radiation Protection Devices: A Phantom Study

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology/Cardiology—Is State-of-the-Art Equipment Used?

Effect of protective glasses on radiation dose to eye lenses during whole breast irradiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About