scholarly journals AWARENESS OF RADIATION HAZARD IN ORTHOPAEDIC RESIDENTS SURGEON IN A CENTRAL INDIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (08) ◽  
pp. 352-356
Author(s):  
Rajeev Shukla ◽  
◽  
Mayank Gulve ◽  
Bikramdeep Singh ◽  
Aayush Soni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Biological Effects ◽  
Central India ◽  
Image Intensifier ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Radiation Hazard ◽  
Radiation Toxicity ◽  
Total Radiation ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Lead Apron

One of the effective techniques which has evolved in contemporary orthopaedic practice is C-arm fluoroscopy in intra-operative orthopaedic procedures. Such techniques improve the competence of the surgeon while reducing the jejuneness and duration of the patients stay at hospital. Although having awareness about reported benefits of the device, there is increasing worry over the surgical teams elevated radiation exposure. The current research was undertaken on orthopaedic surgeons working in the region of Central India to assess the amount of radiation exposure if they follow the normal precautionary steps as well as to raise awareness and encouraging them to use the image intensifier safety in daily practice. In addition, to raise concerns of radiation safety and the befitting use of radiation in the operating room.Materials and Method: This is an observational review of data gathered by residents performing common orthopedic surgical operations in emergency and routine OT during one-year residency at a medical college hospital. We calculated the mean radiation exposure on each resident (orthopedic resident postgraduate-3yr) with and without lead apron protection, and compared it with the ICRP limit for radiation to body per year between 1st January 2020 and 31st December 2021.Result: Total radiation levels accumulated by one resident without lead apron over 1 year was calculated (35.88 milliSv). which was greater to ICRP limit for radiation to body per year (20milliSv).Total radiation levels accumulated by one resident with lead apron over 1 year was calculated (2.04 mSv).which was less than ICRP limit for radiation to body per year (20mSv).Conclusion: Orthopedic resident surgeons are not listed as Radiation personnel. Radiation toxicity, in addition to the risks of other surgical industries, is therefore an additional occupational danger. As a result, orthopedic resident surgeons should be concerned. During surgeries, junior orthopaedic residents vastly underestimate their level of radiation. They should adhere to the guidelines outlined above. The conventional assertion that radiation exposures during c arm use are negligible and should be disregarded, as the long-term adverse biological effects of continuous low-dose radiation exposure are uncertain at this time. Theres a chance of cancer, as well as genetic variations and fertility complications.

RADIATION EXPOSURE TO THE BACK WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF APRONS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Wan Hong ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Jae Hun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Effective Dose ◽  
Exposure Time ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lead Apron ◽  
Type Group ◽  
Air Kerma ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Physicians and nurses stand with their back towards the C-arm fluoroscope when using the computer, taking things out of closets and preparing drugs for injection or instruments for intervention. This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between the type of lead apron and radiation exposure to the backs of physicians and nurses while using C-arm fluoroscopy. We compared radiation exposure to the back in the three groups: no lead apron (group C), front coverage type (group F) and wrap-around type (group W). The other wrap-around type apron was put on the bed instead of on a patient. We ran C-arm fluoroscopy 40 times for each measurement. We collected the air kerma (AK), exposure time (ET) and effective dose (ED) of the bedside table, upper part and lower part of apron. We measured these variables 30 times for each location. In group F, ED of the upper part was the highest (p < 0.001). ED of the lower part in group C and F was higher than that in group W (p = 0.012). The radiation exposure with a front coverage type apron is higher than that of the wrap-around type and even no apron at the neck or thyroid. For reducing radiation exposure to the back of physician or nurse, the wrap-around type apron is recommended. This type of apron can reduce radiation to the back when the physician turns away from the patient or C-arm fluoroscopy.

Studi Paparan Radiasi pada Pekerja Radiasi Cathlab dengan Menggunakan My Dose Mini sebagai Upaya Keselamatan Radiasi di RSUP Adam Malik Medan

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-46
Author(s):  
Martua Damanik ◽  
◽  
Josepa ND Simanjuntak ◽  
Elvita Rahmi Daulay
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Biological Effects ◽  
Exposure Dose ◽  
Radiological Protection ◽  
Safe Level ◽  
Radiation Sources ◽  
Radiation Worker ◽  
Radiation Workers ◽  
Effects Of Radiation ◽  
Radiation Exposure Dose

Cathlab radiation workers, when performing interventional procedures, are at high risk of the effects of radiation exposure. The risk of radiation exposure is deterministic and stochastic biological effects. Therefore, radiation exposure studies of radiation workers at the cath lab were conducted to determine the value of radiation exposure received. This radiation exposure study was conducted by measuring and recording radiation exposure doses received by radiation workers. Measurements are made when the radiation officer performs the intervention procedure. The research was carried out for one month in the cath lab room of the Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan. The modalities used are GE Medical System Interventional Fluoroscopy and Phillips Allura Xper FD20. The dosimeter used is “my dose mini”, which is placed inside a shield or apron worn by radiation workers. The size of the apron shield used is 0.50 mm Pb at the front and 0.25 mm Pb at the rear. Radiation officers whose radiation exposure dose was measured consisted of 10 doctors, 11 nurses, and one radiographer. Each inspection procedure of each radiation worker has a different distance, time, and shield from the radiation source. The measurement of radiation exposure dose is (1-59 μSv) for doctors, (1-58 μSv) for nurses, and 1 μSv for radiographers. To protect against radiation must pay attention to the factors of time, distance, and shielding. Ways that can do are to avoid being close to radiation sources for too long, keep a space at a safe level from radiation, and use shields such as Pb-coated aprons, use Pb gloves, Pb goggles, and thyroid protectors. The amount of radiation exposure dose received by each radiation worker at the time of measurement is still within the tolerance limit. The Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency (BAPETEN) regulation, which the International Commission recommends on Radiological Protection (ICRP), is 20 mSv/year. The results of this study are expected to be used as input for improving the quality of service for monitoring radiation exposure doses in the Cathlab and as reference material for further research.

scholarly journals 220Rn (Thoron) Geohazard in Room Air of Earthen Dwellings in Vietnam

Geofluids ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dương Nguyễn-Thuỳ ◽  
Hướng Nguyễn-Văn ◽  
Jan P. Schimmelmann ◽  
Nguyệt Thị Ánh Nguyễn ◽  
Kelsey Doiron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Distribution ◽  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Indoor Air ◽  
Building Materials ◽  
Human Health Risk ◽  
Radiation Hazard ◽  
Inhalation Dose ◽  
Interior Walls

Thoron’s (220Rn) contribution to α-radiation exposure is usually considered negligible compared to that of 222Rn (radon). Despite its short half-life of 55.6 seconds, thoron can be exhaled from porous surface layers of building materials into indoor air where people subsequently inhale radioisotopes, including metallic radioactive progeny. Bare surfaces of dry porous soil with relatively high 232Th content can pose a thoron radiation hazard in indoor air. On northern Vietnam’s Đồng Văn karst plateau, the spatial distribution of thoron was determined in indoor air of traditional earthen and other types of dwellings using portable RAD7 and SARAD® RTM 2200 detectors. “Mud houses” are constructed with local compacted soil and typically do not have any floor or wall coverings (i.e., no plaster, wallpaper, or paint). Detailed measurements in a mud house revealed levels of thoron in room air averaging >500 Bq m-3. The spatial distribution of α-radiation from thoron in indoor air at a distance of about 1 m from interior walls was fairly homogeneous and averaged ~200 Bq m-3. Most concerning, from a human health perspective, were the high thoron concentrations of up to 884 Bq m-3 in sleeping areas near mud walls. The average annual thoron radiation dose to inhabitants of mud houses was estimated based on 13 hours of daily occupancy, including daily activities and sleeping. The estimated average thoron inhalation dose of 27.1 mSv a-1 during sleeping hours near mud surfaces accounts for nearly 75% of the total estimated radon and thoron inhalation dose of 37.4 mSv a-1 from indoor mud house air. Our conservative annual radiation dose estimates do not include subsequent radiation from inhaled metallic progeny of thoron. Our data demonstrate a significant human health risk from radiation exposure and a critical need for remediation in traditional northern Vietnamese mud house dwellings.

A prospective case control comparison of the ZeroGravity system versus a standard lead apron as radiation protection strategy in neuroendovascular procedures

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1052-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo C Haussen ◽  
Imramsjah Martijn John Van Der Bom ◽  
Raul G Nogueira
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Protection System ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Lead Apron ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Primary Operator ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Peak Skin Dose

Background and purposeWe aimed to compare the performance of the ZeroGravity (ZG) system (radiation protection system composed by a suspended lead suit) against the use of standard protection (lead apron (LA), thyroid shield, lead eyeglasses, table skirts, and ceiling suspended shield) in neuroangiography procedures.Materials and methodsRadiation exposure data were prospectively collected in consecutive neuroendovascular procedures between December 2014 and February 2015. Operator No 1 was assigned to the use of an LA (plus lead glasses, thyroid shield, and a 1 mm hanging shield at the groin) while operator No 2 utilized the ZG system. Dosimeters were used to measure peak skin dose for the head, thyroid, and left foot.ResultsThe two operators performed a total of 122 procedures during the study period. The ZG operator was more commonly the primary operator compared with the LA operator (85% vs 71%; p=0.04). The mean anterior-posterior (AP), lateral, and cumulative dose area product (DAP) radiation exposure as well as the mean fluoroscopy time were not statistically different between the operators’ cases. The peak skin dose to the head of the operator with LA was 2.1 times higher (3380 vs 1600 μSv), while the thyroid was 13.9 (4460 vs 320 μSv), the mediastinum infinitely (520 vs 0 μSv), and the foot 3.3 times higher (4870 vs 1470 μSv) compared with the ZG operator, leading to an overall accumulated dose 4 times higher. The ratio of cumulative operator received dose/total cumulative DAP was 2.5 higher on the LA operator.ConclusionsThe ZG radiation protection system leads to substantially lower radiation exposure to the operator in neurointerventional procedures. However, substantial exposure may still occur at the level of the lens and thyroid to justify additional protection.

SU-E-I-56: Diagnostic Lead Apron Radiation Exposure Comparison Between Manufacture-Stated and Measurements

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (6Part6) ◽  
pp. 3254-3254
Author(s):  
J Syh ◽  
B Patel ◽  
J Syh ◽  
X Song ◽  
D Freund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Lead Apron

scholarly journals Radiation Hazard, Safety, Control and Protection

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-103
Author(s):  
Md Hafizur Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Ionizing Radiation ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Imaging Techniques ◽  
Paediatric Population ◽  
Radiation Hazard ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Safety Control ◽  
Radiological Procedures

The field of Radiology and Nuclear medicine has advanced from era of X-rays to today's modern imaging techniques, most of which use the ionizing radiation. With the benefits of better diagnosis and treatment, it has caused manifold increase in radiation exposure to the patients and the radiology and nuclear medicine personnel. Many studies done till date have clearly documented the harmful effects of ionizing radiation from radiation exposure, especially cancer. This is more important in paediatric population as their tissues are more radiosensitive, and they have more years to live. Diagnostic and therapeutic radiological procedures including nuclear medicine are integral part of modern medical practices, exposing both patients and medical staff to ionizing radiation. Without proper protective measures, this radiation causes many negative health effects. Hence, proper knowledge and awareness regarding the radiation hazards and radiation protection is mandatory for health professionals, especially the nuclear medicine and radiology professionals. International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) has recommended two basic principles of radiation protection, justification of the practice and optimization of protection. Faridpur Med. Coll. J. Jul 2019;14(2): 100-103

scholarly journals Knowledge and practice of radiation safety among health professionals in Trinidad

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205031211984824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Partap ◽  
Ryan Raghunanan ◽  
Kimani White ◽  
Trevor Seepaul
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Ionizing Radiation ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Image Intensifier ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Care Providers

Objective: To determine the practices and knowledge of radiation safety measures among health care providers in tertiary institutions in Trinidad. Design & Method: A cross-sectional survey of health care professionals within two public hospitals was conducted using a questionnaire distributed to individuals working in Cardiology, General Surgery, Internal medicine, Orthopaedics, Radiology and Urology who require the use of ionizing radiation machines. The questionnaire comprised of 30 questions divided into five subcategories including demographic data, usage of the ionizing radiation machines, basic knowledge, and attitude towards personal protective equipment as well as radiation exposure measurement. Questionnaire results were tabulated and analysed using Microsoft Excel and Stata v11 with comparative statistical analysis being done using the one-way analysis of variance test. Results: A total of 118 health care professionals participated in this study. The majority (85/118 (72%)) of individuals revealed that they had no formal training regarding safe practices when working with ionizing radiation despite the daily use of the fluoroscopy machines by at least 25% of participants. Individuals who had formal training in the use of ionizing radiation were found to score significantly higher than those without training (p < 0.0001). Participants’ knowledge regarding the proper positioning of the C-arm image intensifier to reduce radiation exposure was low with 46% of individuals providing a correct response. Conclusions: The level of knowledge among the individuals who participate in the operation of ionizing radiation equipment throughout the country is low. The benefit of training in the use of the C-arm image intensifier is highlighted by the revelation that the individuals who had formal training in the use of these machines performed better than those individuals without training. Annual recertification courses should be implemented such that individuals are kept abreast with current changes and reminded of commonly neglected safety practices.

scholarly journals Elevated Radiation Exposure Associated With Above Surface Flat Detector Mini C-Arm Use

Hand ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-569
Author(s):  
Dennis P. Martin ◽  
Talia Chapman ◽  
Christopher Williamson ◽  
Brian Tinsley ◽  
Asif M. Ilyas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Prolonged Exposure ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Image Intensifier ◽  
Body Part ◽  
Operating Table ◽  
Dependent Manner ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Flat Detector ◽  
Dose Dependent

Background: This study aims to test the hypothesis that: (1) radiation exposure is increased with the intended use of Flat Surface Image Intensifier (FSII) units above the operative surface compared with the traditional below-table configuration; (2) this differential increases in a dose-dependent manner; and (3) radiation exposure varies with body part and proximity to the radiation source. Methods: A surgeon mannequin was seated at a radiolucent hand table, positioned for volar distal radius plating. Thermoluminescent dosimeters measured exposure to the eyes, thyroid, chest, hand, and groin, for 1- and 15-minute trials from a mini C-arm FSII unit positioned above and below the operating surface. Background radiation was measured by control dosimeters placed within the operating theater. Results: At 1-minute of exposure, hand and eye dosages were significantly greater with the flat detector positioned above the table. At 15-minutes of exposure, hand radiation dosage exceeded that of all other anatomic sites with the FSII in both positions. Hand exposure was increased in a dose-dependent manner with the flat detector in either position, whereas groin exposure saw a dose-dependent only with the flat detector beneath the operating table. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the surgeon’s hands and eyes may incur greater radiation exposure compared with other body parts, during routine mini C-arm FSII utilization in its intended position above the operating table. The clinical impact of these findings remains unclear, and future long-term radiation safety investigation is warranted. Surgeons should take precautions to protect critical body parts, particularly when using FSII technology above the operating with prolonged exposure time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document