Redundant Protective Barriers: Minimizing Operator Occupational Risk

Challa, Karthik; Warren, Stafford G.; Danak, Subhash; Bates, Mark C.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-8183.2009.00433.x

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The efficacy of protective eyewear is also found to be very sensitive to other factors such as the angular position of the radiologist. Research by Challa speculated that the overall dose reduction during a procedure could be much lower than expected, since the parameters involved in practical use are much more complicated than that in calibration. It is found in our study that due to the gap between the two lenses of the glasses, the DRF is much higher for the left lens than that for the right lens when the irradiated area is on the left side of the radiologist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences of operator head posture and protective eyewear on eye lens doses in interventional radiology: A Monte Carlo Study

Mao

Caracappa

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To quantify the effects of operator head posture and different types of protective eyewear on the eye lens dose to operators in interventional radiology (IR). Methods A deformable computational human phantom, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Adult Male, consisting of a high‐resolution eye model, was used to simulate a radiologist who is performing an interventional radiology procedure. The radiologist phantom was deformed to a set of different head postures. Three different protective eyewear models were incorporated into the posture‐deformed radiologist phantom. The eye lens dose of the radiologist was calculated using the Monte Carlo code, MCNP. Effects of the radiologist's head posture and different types of protective eyewear on eye lens doses were studied. The relationship between efficacy of protective eyewear and the radiologist's head posture was investigated. Effects of other parameters on efficacy of protective eyewear were also studied, including the angular position of the radiologist, the gap between the eyewear and the face of the radiologist, and the lead equivalent thickness. Results The dose to both lenses decreased by 80% as the head posture moved from looking downward to looking upward. Sports wrap glasses were found to reduce doses further than the other two studied models. The efficacy of eyewear was found to be related to radiologist's head posture as well. When the radiologist was looking up, the protective eyewear almost provided no protection to both lenses. Other factors such as the face‐to‐eyewear distance and the lead equivalent thickness were also found to have an impact on the efficacy of protective eyewear. The dose reduction factor (DRF), defined as the ratio of the dose to the lens without protection to that with protection, decreased from 4.25 to 1.07 as the face‐to‐eyewear distance increased. The DRF almost doubled when the lead equivalent thickness increased from 0.07 to 0.35 mm. However, further increase in lead equivalent thickness showed little improvement in dose reduction. Conclusion The radiologist's head posture has a significant influence on the eye lens dose in IR. Sports wrap protective eyewear which conforms to the curve of the face is essential for the radiation protection of the eye lens. However, the radiologist's head posture and other exposure parameters should be considered when evaluating the protection of the radiologist's eyes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences of operator head posture and protective eyewear on eye lens doses in interventional radiology: A Monte Carlo Study

Mao

Caracappa

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparing 10 lens types, including lenses capable of attenuating a direct X-ray beam [1000 times in phantom studies, one study found that lens irradiation during patient fluoroscopy was reduced at best by a factor of 5.3 [55]. Challa found that eyeglasses reduced lens dose in cardiology procedures to the left and right eye by 67 and 45 %, respectively [56], and a similar cardiology study found a left eye dose reduction of only 35 % [57]. Another study assessed eyeglass protection in a wide range of interventional procedures, finding a dose reduction factor of 2.1 for the left (tube-side) eye and no significant dose reduction for the right eye [52].…”

Section: Techniques For Minimizing Lens Exposurementioning

confidence: 98%

Radiation-Induced Cataractogenesis: A Critical Literature Review for the Interventional Radiologist

Seals

Lee

Cagnon

et al. 2015

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extensive research supports an association between radiation exposure and cataractogenesis. New data suggests that radiation-induced cataracts may form stochastically, without a threshold and at low radiation doses. We first review data linking cataractogenesis with interventional work. We then analyze the lens dose typical of various procedures, factors modulating dose, and predicted annual dosages. We conclude by critically evaluating the literature describing techniques for lens protection, finding that leaded eyeglasses may offer inadequate protection and exploring the available data on alternative strategies for cataract prevention.

show abstract

“…Challa et al 41 In vivo, IC, n = 1 Rectangular 3 (L); 1.8 (R) Dash et al 42 In vivo, IC, n = 2 Rectangular, no lateral protection 1.5 (L)…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational doses to the eye lens in pediatric and adult noncardiac interventional radiology procedures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess occupational lens exposure in a mixed interventional radiology department, comparing pediatric and adult procedures. To analyze the correlation between the lens dose and the doses measured at the chest and collar level and the kerma-area product (P KA ). Methods: For 17 months, three radiologists performing both pediatric and adult interventions were monitored by means of 14 dosimeters per worker: 12 single-point optically stimulated luminescent (OSL) dosimeters calibrated in terms of H p (0.07) were placed on the inside and outside of two pairs of lead glasses, one for pediatric procedures and one for adult interventions; another whole-body OSL dosimeter calibrated in terms of H p (10) was placed over the thyroid shield; finally, an additional active solid-state dosimeter, also calibrated for H p (10), was worn on the chest, over the apron. Furthermore, a database was created to register the demographic and dosimetric data of the procedures, as well as the name of the radiologist acting as first operator. Results: For the three radiologists, who performed 276-338 procedures/year (20% pediatric), cumulative annual doses to the left bare eye exceeded 20 mSv (21-61 mSv). Considering the glasses' protection, annual doses exceeded 6 mSv (13-48 mSv) for both eyes. No important differences were observed in lens dose per procedure between pediatric and adult interventions (0.16 vs 0.18, 0.12 vs 0.09, and 0.07 vs 0.07 mSv), although lens dose per P KA was 4.1-4.5 times higher in pediatrics (5.8 vs 1.3, 3.3 vs 0.8, and 2.6 vs 0.6 µSv/GyÁcm 2 ) despite a similar use of the ceiling-suspended screen. Lens doses were highly correlated with collar readings (with Pearson coefficients [r] ranging from 0.86 to 0.98) and with chest readings (with r ranging from 0.75 to 0.93). However, slopes of the linear regressions varied greatly among radiologists. Conclusions: There is real risk of exceeding the occupational dose limit to the eye lens in mixed interventional radiology rooms if radiation protection tools are not used properly. Regular monitoring of the lens dose is recommended, given lens exposure might easily exceed 6 mSv/yr. Using a collar dosimeter for this purpose might be suitable if it is preceded by an individualized regression analysis. The same radiation protection measures should be applied to interventional radiologists regardless of whether they are treating pediatric or adult patients.

show abstract

Redundant Protective Barriers: Minimizing Operator Occupational Risk

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Influences of operator head posture and protective eyewear on eye lens doses in interventional radiology: A Monte Carlo Study

Influences of operator head posture and protective eyewear on eye lens doses in interventional radiology: A Monte Carlo Study

Radiation-Induced Cataractogenesis: A Critical Literature Review for the Interventional Radiologist

Occupational doses to the eye lens in pediatric and adult noncardiac interventional radiology procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About