Shielding Effect of Lead Glasses on Radiologists’ Eye Lens Exposure in Interventional Procedures

Hu, Panpan; Kong, Yan; Chen, Bin; Liu, Qianqian; Zhuo, Weihai; Liu, Haikuan

doi:10.1093/rpd/ncw098

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(130) Another study using Monte Carlo simulations and measurements and considering the effect of eye equivalence and the size of the glasses was performed by Hu et al (2017). According to the study, dose to the lens of the eye was reduced by a factor from 3 to 9 when wearing lead glasses with 20-cm 2 -sized lenses with an equivalent thickness ranging from 0.1-to 1.0-mm Pb.…”

Section: Assessment Of Dose To the Lens Of The Eye When Glasses Are Wornmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures

López¹,

Dauer²,

Loose³

et al. 2018

Ann ICRP

179

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent publications, such as Publications 117 and 120, the Commission provided practical advice for physicians and other healthcare personnel on measures to protect their patients and themselves during interventional procedures. These measures can only be effective if they are encompassed by a framework of radiological protection elements, and by the availability of professionals with responsibilities in radiological protection. This framework includes a radiological protection programme with a strategy for exposure monitoring, protective garments, education and training, and quality assurance of the programme implementation. Professionals with responsibilities in occupational radiological protection for interventional procedures include: medical physicists; radiological protection specialists; personnel working in dosimetry services; clinical applications support personnel from the suppliers and maintenance companies; staff engaged in training, standardisation of equipment, and procedures; staff responsible for occupational health; hospital administrators responsible for providing financial support; and professional bodies and regulators. This publication addresses these elements and these audiences, and provides advice on specific issues, such as assessment of effective dose from dosimeter readings when an apron is worn, estimation of exposure of the lens of the eye (with and without protective eyewear), extremity monitoring, selection and testing of protective garments, and auditing the interventional procedures when occupational doses are unusually high or low (the latter meaning that the dosimeter may not have been worn).

show abstract

Section: Assessment Of Dose To the Lens Of The Eye When Glasses Are Wornmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures

López¹,

Dauer²,

Loose³

et al. 2018

Ann ICRP

179

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As shown in various Monte Carlo studies, 31,38 DRFs are highly dependent on the radiologist's distance from the tube, the angular position of the body, the tilt of the head, the height, the fit of the glasses to the face, and the tube position, which are roughly kept constant throughout an interventional procedure and can hardly be reproduced in a Monte Carlo or phantom-based analysis. On the other hand, DRFs do also depend on the glasses' lead equivalence and size although some studies indicate that there is no further improvement in the protection for lead equivalences higher than 0.35 mm Pb 31,39 and areas larger than 30 cm 2 per lens 39 . In this regard, the variations in the DRFs values do not seem to be attributable to different lead equivalences, as values higher than 0.35 mm Pb are frequently employed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…This finding should be interpreted with caution, as few cases reported ever using lead glasses (n=167). Hu et al demonstrated a substantial reduction in radiation dose to the eye during FGIP with the use of lead glasses 24. The lack of trend in cataract risk with greater use of ceiling suspended shields and mobile floor shields is expected, as technologists typically stand outside the shielded area even when they are positioned near the patient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess radiation exposure-related work history and risk of cataract and cataract surgery among radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP).MethodsThis retrospective study included 35 751 radiologic technologists who reported being cataract-free at baseline (1994–1998) and completed a follow-up questionnaire (2013–2014). Frequencies of assisting with 21 types of FGIP and use of radiation protection equipment during five time periods (before 1970, 1970–1979, 1980–1989, 1990–1999, 2000–2009) were derived from an additional self-administered questionnaire in 2013–2014. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for self-reported cataract diagnosis and cataract surgery were estimated according to FGIP work history.ResultsDuring follow-up, 9372 technologists reported incident physician-diagnosed cataract; 4278 of incident cases reported undergoing cataract surgery. Technologists who ever assisted with FGIP had increased risk for cataract compared with those who never assisted with FGIP (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.25). Risk increased with increasing cumulative number of FGIP; the RR for technologists who assisted with >5000 FGIP compared with those who never assisted was 1.38 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.53; p trend <0.001). These associations were more pronounced for FGIP when technologists were located ≤3 feet (≤0.9 m) from the patient compared with >3 feet (>0.9 m) (RRs for >5000 at ≤3 feet vs never FGIP were 1.48, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.74 and 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, respectively; pdifference=0.04). Similar risks, although not statistically significant, were observed for cataract surgery.ConclusionTechnologists who reported assisting with FGIP, particularly high-volume FGIP within 3 feet of the patient, had increased risk of incident cataract. Additional investigation should evaluate estimated dose response and medically validated cataract type.

show abstract

Shielding Effect of Lead Glasses on Radiologists’ Eye Lens Exposure in Interventional Procedures

Cited by 23 publications

References 14 publications

ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures

ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures

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

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About