OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE OF THE EYE IN NEUROVASCULAR INTERVENTIONAL PHYSICIAN

2019 ◽  
Vol 185 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamoru Kato ◽  
Koichi Chida ◽  
Takato Ishida ◽  
Hideto Toyoshima ◽  
Yasuyuki Yoshida ◽  
...  

Abstract Neurovascular interventional radiology (neuro-IR) procedures tend to require an extended fluoroscopic exposure time and repeated digital subtraction angiography. To evaluate the actual measurement of eye lens dose using a direct eye dosemeter in neuro-IR physicians is important. Direct dosimetry using the DOSIRIS™ (IRSN, France) [3 mm dose equivalent, Hp(3)] was performed on 86 cases. Additionally, a neck personal dosemeter (glass badge) [0.07 mm dose equivalent, Hp(0.07)] was worn outside the protective apron to the left of the neck. The average doses per case of neuro-IR physicians were 0.04 mSv/case and 0.02 mSv/case, outside and inside the radiation protection glasses, respectively. The protective effect of radiation protection glasses was approximately 60%. The physician eye lens dose tended to be overestimated by the neck glass badge measurements. A correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using an eye dosemeter such as DOSIRIS™ is needed for neuro-IR physicians.

2019 ◽  
Vol 187 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamoru Kato ◽  
Koichi Chida ◽  
Takato Ishida ◽  
Fumiaki Sasaki ◽  
Hideto Toyoshima ◽  
...  

Abstract Interventional radiology (IR) procedures tend to be complex, which delivers high radiation exposure to patient. In the present study, we measured the radiation exposure dose [Hp(3)] in the eye using a direct eye dosemeter placed next to the physician’s eye during procedures. Physicians wore a direct eye dosemeter just lateral to eyes and an additional direct eye dosemeter outside the radiation protective eyeglasses close to their eyes. Additionally, a neck glass badge was worn at the neck. Although we found a positive correlation between the left neck glass badge dose [Hp(0.07)] and the left eye lens dose [Hp(3)], the value of R2 of the regression equation were 0.62 and 0.71 (outside and inside). We thought that the exact eye lens dose might not be estimated from the neck glass badge. In conclusion, a correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using the direct eye dosemeter is recommended for tachyarrhythmia physicians.


2020 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 106276
Author(s):  
Meng-En Lian ◽  
Yuan-Hsiung Tsai ◽  
I-Gung Li ◽  
Yu-Han Hong ◽  
Szu-Li Chang ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Omar ◽  
Nils Kadesjö ◽  
Charlotta Palmgren ◽  
Maria Marteinsdottir ◽  
Tony Segerdahl ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel R. Wang ◽  
Amanda H. Kumar ◽  
Pedro Tanaka ◽  
Alex Macario

Anesthesia providers are frequently exposed to radiation during routine patient care in the operating room and remote anesthetizing locations. Eighty-two percent of anesthesiology residents (n = 57 responders) at our institution had a “high” or “very high” concern about the level of ionizing radiation exposure, and 94% indicated interest in educational materials about radiation safety. This article highlights key learning points related to basic physical principles, effects of ionizing radiation, radiation exposure measurement, occupational dose limits, considerations during pregnancy, sources of exposure, factors affecting occupational exposure such as positioning and shielding, and monitoring. The principle source of exposure is through scattered radiation as opposed to direct exposure from the X-ray beam, with the patient serving as the primary source of scatter. As a result, maximizing the distance between the provider and the patient is of great importance to minimize occupational exposure. Our dosimeter monitoring project found that anesthesiology residents (n = 41) had low overall mean measured occupational radiation exposure. The highest deep dose equivalent value for a resident was 0.50 mSv over a 3-month period, less than 10% of the International Commission on Radiological Protection occupational limit, with the eye dose equivalent being 0.52 mSv, approximately 4% of the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended limit. Continued education and awareness of the risks of ionizing radiation and protective strategies will reduce exposure and potential for associated sequelae.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 260
Author(s):  
Anna Zagorska ◽  
Kristina Bliznakova ◽  
Annalisa Trianni ◽  
Jenia Vassileva

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document