RADIATION PROTECTION CABIN FOR CATHETER-DIRECTED LIVER INTERVENTIONS: OPERATOR DOSE ASSESSMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 170 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 274-278
Author(s):  
Geert Maleux ◽  
Niki Bergans ◽  
Hilde Bosmans ◽  
Ria Bogaerts
Author(s):  
Eka Djatnika Nugraha ◽  
Masahiro Hosoda ◽  
June Mellawati ◽  
Untara Untara ◽  
Ilsa Rosianna ◽  
...  

The world community has long used natural hot springs for tourist and medicinal purposes. In Indonesia, the province of West Java, which is naturally surrounded by volcanoes, is the main destination for hot spring tourism. This paper is the first report on radon measurements in tourism natural hot spring water in Indonesia as part of radiation protection for public health. The purpose of this paper is to study the contribution of radon doses from natural hot spring water and thereby facilitate radiation protection for public health. A total of 18 water samples were measured with an electrostatic collection type radon monitor (RAD7, Durridge Co., USA). The concentration of radon in natural hot spring water samples in the West Java region, Indonesia ranges from 0.26 to 31 Bq L−1. An estimate of the annual effective dose in the natural hot spring water area ranges from 0.51 to 0.71 mSv with a mean of 0.60 mSv for workers. Meanwhile, the annual effective dose for the public ranges from 0.10 to 0.14 mSv with an average of 0.12 mSv. This value is within the range of the average committed effective dose from inhalation and terrestrial radiation for the general public, 1.7 mSv annually.


2016 ◽  
Vol 173 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 192-197
Author(s):  
Nancy Puerta Yepes ◽  
Ana Rojo ◽  
Sebastián Gossio ◽  
José Luis Crudo

Author(s):  
Jerry R Williams

The chapter is concerned with the features of radiographic and fluoroscopic equipment that present radiation protection issues for both patients and staff. These are managed through regulation, manufacturing standards, and adherence to safe working practices. It is different for patients who are deliberately irradiated in accordance with justification protocols not considered here. Radiation protection is based on the ALARP principle which requires the resultant dose to be minimized consistent with image quality is sufficient to provide accurate and safe diagnosis. Dose minimization is critically dependent on detector efficiency. Quality control of dose for individual examinations is particularly important to provide assurance of ALARP. It should include not only patient dose assessment but also detector dose indicators, particularly in radiography. These issues are discussed in detail together with other dose-saving features and discussion on objective methods of image quality assessment. Commissioning and lifetime tests are required for quality assurance programmes. These are described.


2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 233-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.A. Higley ◽  
D.C. Kocher ◽  
A.G. Real ◽  
D.B. Chambers

Radiation weighting factors have long been employed to modify absorbed dose as part of the process of evaluating radiological impact to humans. Their use represents an acknowledgement of the fundamental difference in energy deposition patterns of charged and uncharged particles, and how this can translate into varying degrees of biological impact. Weighting factors used in human radiation protection are derived from a variety of endpoints taken from in-vitro experiments that include human and animal cell lines, as well as in-vivo experiments with animals. Nonetheless, the application of radiation weighting factors in the context of dose assessment of animals and plants is not without some controversy. Specifically, radiation protection of biota has largely focused on limiting deterministic effects, such as reduced reproductive fitness. Consequently, the application of conventional stochastic-based radiation weighting factors (when used for human protection) appears inappropriate. While based on research, radiation weighting factors represent the parsing of extensive laboratory studies on relative biological effectiveness. These studies demonstrate that the magnitude of a biological effect depends not just on dose, but also on other factors including the rate at which the dose is delivered, the type and energy of the radiation delivering the dose, and, most importantly, the endpoint under consideration. This article discusses the efforts taken to develop a logical, transparent, and defensible approach to establishing radiation weighting factors for use in assessing impact to non-human biota, and the challenges found in differentiating stochastic from deterministic impacts.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omid Azadbakht ◽  
Seyedeh Leila Dehghani ◽  
mohsen shafiee ◽  
Parsa faghani scandarkolaei ◽  
Amirmasoud asadi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Identifying the level of radiology students and radiologist's awareness about their knowledge of radiation risks and radiation protection and their understanding of radiation dose levels in medical imaging tests will help global and national lawmakers adjust laws according to the recognized need in studies. The significance of this study is further enhanced when it is considered a lack of radiation awareness may increase the risk of radiation damage to themselves and patients. Method: This Crossectional study is done on 180 people, including 62 people were students (radiology residents and technologists), and 118 people were radiology staff (radiologists and radiographers). For measuring the awareness of participants, a prepared questionnaire which had a total of 22 questions. The poll was divided into three sections of which: Demographics data, Radiation protection awareness, and knowledge of radiologists about dose assessment. The questionnaire reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency utilizing the Cronbach’s alpha (0.85_). A P-value of less than 0.05 was set a threshold for statistical sig-nuisance. Statistical analysis was carried out using software SPSS version 22. Result Most students believed that 1-year-old girls had the most sensitivity to radiation, while most staff found that radiation risk was unrelated to age and sex. Both staff and students found that crews working in nuclear medicine departments were more exposed to radiation (the majority). Most students and faculty also chose breast tissue as the most sensitive organ against radiation. It should be noted that among the staff responses, a significant number of bones were also selected. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Approximately 82 percent of students chose a dose of Lumbar X-ray exams between 1 and 50 times the PA chest, and only 9 percent answered the question correctly (100 − 50 times). However, 27% of employees chose the correct answer. Students on the average dose of mammography had more choice (1–10 times) of a PA chest test, while staff preferred 100–500. (Both groups did not perform well in this question). The crew performed better on the dose resulting from a PET-CT test as well as the dose estimate from a nuclear medicine heart scan, and selected 36% correct response (more than 500 times the PA chest), while students had a lower rating (1–10 times) than others. Conclusion Most students and staff believed that they had a suitable or sufficient level of awareness of ionizing radiation. Overall, 45% of students and staff rarely had any training or retraining (37%). Radiology students had a better level of knowledge about radiation protection than team, while team had better estimates in discussing dose assessment. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Students and staff had accurate estimates of the dose received in a PA chest and the average dose of background radiation. Both groups had little information on mammography, but had good knowledge of ultrasound, MRI, and CT scans. In general, staff and students had a good understanding of nuclear medicine dose assessment. (Staff performed better)


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Noval Morillas ◽  
A Gutierrez Barrios ◽  
E Angulo Pain ◽  
L Gheorghe ◽  
I Alarcon De La Lastra ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Hospital Puerta del Mar BACKGROUND  The use of ionizing radiation during cardiac catheterization interventions adversely impacts both the patients and the medical staff.  Traditional radiation protection equipment is only partially effective. The Cathpax® radiation protection cabin (RPC) has demonstrated to significantly reduce radiation exposure in electrophysiological and neuroradiology interventions. Our objective was to analyze whether the Cathpax® RPC reduces radiation dose in coronary and cardiac structural interventions in unselected real-world procedures.  METHODS AND RESULTS  In this non-randomized all-comers prospective study, 119 consecutive cardiac interventional procedures were alternatively divided into two groups: the RPC group (n = 59) and the non-RPC group (n = 60). No significant changes in patients and procedures characteristics, average contrast volume, air kerma (AK), dose area-product (PDA) and fluoroscopy time between both groups were apparent. In RPC group, the first operator relative radiation exposure was reduced by 78% at the chest and by 70% at the wrist. This effect was consistent during different types of procedures including complex percutaneous interventions and structural procedures. CONCLUSIONS  Our study demonstrates, for the first time, that the Cathpax® cabin significantly and efficiently reduces relative operator radiation exposure during different types of interventional procedures, confirming its feasibility in a real-world setting. Table 3.Comparison of radiation exposureStructural (n = 12)Coronary (n = 107)pPrimary outcomesFirst operator relative exposure at chest*6.8 ± 33 ± 0.60.06First operator relative exposure at left wrist*19.3 ± 104 ± 1.50.01Secondary outcomesSecond operator relative exposure at chest*2.5 ± 1.21.2 ± 0.20.06First operator dose at chest (E in µSv)59.2 ± 4317.2 ± 50.08First operator dose at left wrist (E in µSv)134.1 ± 9623.4 ± 90.04Second operator dose at chest (E in µSv)19 ± 165.7 ± 20.1Patient exposure (DAP in mGy·cm2)62651 ± 2618059682 ± 142860.8Fluoroscopy time, min (±SD)24.2 ± 715.7 ± 40.2Abstract Figures 1 and 2


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
omid azadbakht ◽  
Seyedeh Leila Dehghani ◽  
mohsen shafiee ◽  
Parsa faghani scandarkolaei ◽  
Amirmasoud asadi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Identifying the level of radiology students and staffs's awareness of their knowledge of radiation risks and radiation protection and their understanding of radiation dose levels in medical imaging procedures will help global and national lawmakers adjust laws according to the recognized need in studies. The significance of this study is further enhanced when it is considered a lack of radiation awareness may increase the risk of radiation damage to themselves and patients.Method: This Crossectional study is done on 180 participants, including 62 participants were students (radiology residents and technologists), and 118 participants were radiology staff (radiologists and radiographers). For measuring the awareness of participants, a prepared questionnaire which had a total of 22 questions. The poll was divided into three sections of which: Demographics data, Radiation protection awareness, and knowledge of radiologists about dose assessment. The questionnaire reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency utilizing the Cronbach’s alpha (0.85_). A P-value of less than 0.05 was set a threshold for statistical sig-nuisance. Statistical analysis was carried out using software SPSS version 22. Result: Most students believed that 1-year-old girls had the most sensitivity to radiation, while most staff found that radiation risk was unrelated to age and sex. Both staff and students found that crews working in nuclear medicine departments were more exposed to radiation (the majority). Most students and faculty also chose breast tissue as the most sensitive organ against radiation. It should be noted that among the staff responses, a significant number of bones were also selected. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Approximately 82 percent of students chose a dose of Lumbar X-ray exams between 1 and 50 times the PA chest, and only 9 percent answered the question correctly (100-50 times). However, 27% of employees chose the correct answer. Students on the average dose of mammography had more choice (1-10 times) of a PA chest test, while staff preferred 100-500. (Both groups did not perform well in this question). The crew performed better on the dose resulting from a PET-CT test as well as the dose estimate from a nuclear medicine heart scan, and selected 36% correct response (more than 500 times the PA chest), while students had a lower rating (1-10 times) than others.Conclusion: In self-reported; most students and staffs believed that they had a suitable or sufficient level of awareness of ionizing radiation. Overall, 45% of students and staff rarely had any training or retraining (37%). Radiology students had a better level of knowledge about radiation protection than team, while team had better estimates in discussing dose assessment. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Students and staff had accurate estimates of the dose received in a PA chest and the average dose of background radiation. Both groups had little information on mammography, but had good knowledge of ultrasound, MRI, and CT scans. In general, staff and students had a good understanding of nuclear medicine dose assessment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1112) ◽  
pp. 20200018
Author(s):  
James A Crowhurst ◽  
Mark Whitby ◽  
Nicholas Aroney ◽  
Rustem Dautov ◽  
Darren Walters ◽  
...  

Objectives: Radiation from cardiac angiography procedures is harmful to patients and the staff performing them. This study sought to investigate operator radiation dose for a range of procedures and different operators in order to investigate trends and optimise dose. Methods: Real-time dosemeters (RTDs) were worn by operators for angiography procedures for 3 years. Dose–area product (DAP) and RTD were collected. RTD was normalised to DAP (RTD/DAP) to compare radiation dose and radiation protection measures. Comparisons were made across procedure categories and individual operators. Results: In 7626 procedures, median and 75th percentile levels were established for operator dose for 8 procedure categories. There was a significant difference in all operator dose measures and DAP across procedure categories (p<0.001). DAP, RTD, and RTD/DAP were significantly different across 22 individual operators (p<0.001). Conclusion: DAP was significantly different across procedure categories and a higher RTD was seen with higher DAP. RTD/DAP can demonstrate radiation protection effectiveness and identified differences between procedures and individual operators with this measure. Procedures and individuals were identified where further optimisation of radiation protection measures may be beneficial. A reference level for operator dose can be created and audited against on a regular basis. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrates that operator dose can be easily and routinely measured on a case by case basis to investigate dose trends for different procedures. Normalising the operator dose to DAP demonstrates radiation protection effectiveness for the individual operator which can then be optimised as part of an ongoing audit program.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document