Radiation Protection for the Fluoroscopy Operator and Staff

Meisinger, Q.; Stahl, Cosette M; André, Michael P.; Kinney, Thomas B.; Newton, Isabel G.

doi:10.2214/ajr.16.16556

Cited by 84 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is recommended that physicians use more protective devices for their radiation protection [16]. To attenuate over 90% of scattered X-rays, an apron with over 0.5 mm lead equivalent thickness is needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The radiation safety education and the pain physicians' efforts to reduce radiation exposure

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundC-arm fluoroscopy equipment is important for interventional pain management and can cause radiation injury to physicians and patients. We compared radiation safety education and efforts to reduce the radiation exposure of pain specialists.MethodsA survey of 49 pain specialists was conducted anonymously in 2016. The questionnaire had 16 questions. That questionnaire was about radiation safety knowledge and efforts to reduce exposure. We investigated the correlation between radiation safety education and efforts of radiation protection. We compared the results from 2016 and a published survey from 2011.ResultsAccording to the 2016 survey, all respondents used C-arm fluoroscopy in pain interventions. Nineteen respondents (39%) had received radiation safety education. Physicians had insufficient knowledge about radiation safety. When the radiation safety education group and the non-education group are compared, there was no significant difference in efforts to reduce radiation exposure and radiation safety knowledge. When the 2011 and 2016 surveys were compared, the use of low dose mode (P = 0.000) and pulsed mode had increased significantly (P = 0.001). The number checking for damage to radiation protective garments (P = 0.000) and use of the dosimeter had also increased significantly (P = 0.009). But there was no significant difference in other efforts to reduce radiation exposure.ConclusionsPain physicians seem to lack knowledge of radiation safety and the number of physicians receiving radiation safety education is low. According to this study, education does not lead to practice. Therefore, pain physicians should receive regular radiation safety education and the education should be mandatory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The radiation safety education and the pain physicians' efforts to reduce radiation exposure

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These materials typically have a lead equivalent of 0.5 mm. Some studies were able to show a reduction of the local dose in the region of the examiner's lower extremities of up to 64 % (from 5.54 mSv to 1.98 mSv on average) [16,25,26].…”

Section: Under-table Shieldingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4. Shields made of bismuth with a lead equivalent of 0.1 mm reduce the radiation dose up to 91 % for the eyes, 96 % for the thyroid, and 96 % for the hands [16,30,31]. In their study Lange et al were able to show an average personal dose reduction from 20.9 µSv to 9.0 µSv (56.9 %) by using a radiation protection mat with a lead equivalent of 0.5 mm on the patient [32].…”

Section: Scatter Radiation Protection To Be Placed On the Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal Radiation Protection and Corresponding Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology: An Overview and Future Developments

König

Etzel

Thomas

et al. 2019

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The increasing number of minimally invasive fluoroscopy-guided interventions is likely to result in higher radiation exposure for interventional radiologists and medical staff. Not only the number of procedures but also the complexity of these procedures and therefore the exposure time as well are growing. There are various radiation protection means for protecting medical staff against scatter radiation. This article will provide an overview of the different protection devices, their efficacy in terms of radiation protection and the corresponding dosimetry. Method The following key words were used to search the literature: radiation protection, eye lens dose, radiation exposure in interventional radiology, cataract, cancer risk, dosimetry in interventional radiology, radiation dosimetry. Results and Conclusion Optimal radiation protection always requires a combination of different radiation protection devices. Radiation protection and monitoring of the head and neck, especially of the eye lenses, is not yet sufficiently accepted and further development is needed in this field. To reduce the risk of cataract, new protection glasses with an integrated dosimeter are to be introduced in clinical routine practice. Key Points: Citation Format

show abstract

“…4,5 While protective garments can help minimize radiation exposure, the risks of chronic low-level exposure have not been established. 6 It is generally accepted that health care providers should attempt to adhere to the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle when performing radiologic studies to help minimize radiation exposure given the extent of cellular damage which is proportional to the ionizing radiation exposure. 7 Authors previously described the baseline radiation exposure during VUD studies and identified independent predictors of increased radiation exposure such as body mass index (BMI), vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), sex, number of fill cycles, and larger bladder capacity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation exposure during videourodynamic testing: Is dose reduction possible using a standardized protocol?

Hoffman

Sussman

Pape

et al. 2019

Neurourology and Urodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To evaluate the impact of a protocol for standardized image capture during video urodynamics (VUD) on radiation exposure. Secondly, to categorize radiation exposure by condition warranting VUD and to identify clinical variables that correlate with increased radiation exposure. Methods: One hundred fifty patients underwent VUD using our standardized protocol. All images were taken using low dose and pulsed settings. Four images are captured: one scout image, one filling image, one voiding image, and one post-void image. If the patient is unable to void with the catheter in place, the catheter is removed and a second image is taken during an attempt at unintubated flow. If vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is identified, an alternate protocol is entered to document parameters. The mean radiation exposure measured in dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and number of images were noted and compared with previously published fluoroscopy data collected at our institution before protocol implementation. Results: The mean fluoroscopy exposure after the implementation of our protocol was 273.5 mGy/cm 2 taking 5.2 images in 4.5 seconds. Protocol implementation leads to a 51.2% reduction in radiation exposure calculated by mean DAP (P < .0001) and a 96.5% reduction in fluoroscopy time (P < .0001).The presence of VUR, fluoroscopy time, and body mass index (BMI) > 25 were associated with higher radiation exposure (P < .0001).Conclusion: Implementation and adherence to a standardized protocol for fluoroscopy led to a reduction in radiation exposure fluoroscopy time. The presence of VUR, fluoroscopy time, and BMI > 25 were associated with higher radiation exposure. K E Y W O R D Squality improvement, radiation exposure, urodynamics

show abstract

Radiation Protection for the Fluoroscopy Operator and Staff

Cited by 84 publications

References 61 publications

The radiation safety education and the pain physicians' efforts to reduce radiation exposure

The radiation safety education and the pain physicians' efforts to reduce radiation exposure

Personal Radiation Protection and Corresponding Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology: An Overview and Future Developments

Radiation exposure during videourodynamic testing: Is dose reduction possible using a standardized protocol?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About