Advertisement

Protective Efficacy of Different Ocular Radiation Protection Devices: A Phantom Study

  • A. M. KoenigEmail author
  • R. Etzel
  • W. Greger
  • S. Viniol
  • M. Fiebich
  • R. P. Thomas
  • A. H. Mahnken
Laboratory Investigation Radiation Protection
  • 14 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Radiation Protection

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different designs and types of ocular radiation protection devices depending on simulated varied body heights in a phantom-simulated thoracic intervention.

Materials and Methods

A clinical angiography system with a standardized fluoroscopy protocol with an anthropomorphic chest phantom as a scattering object and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for measuring radiation dose were used. The dosimeters were placed at the position of eyes of an anthropomorphic head phantom simulating the examiner. The head phantom was placed on a height-adjustable stand simulating the height of the examiner from 160 to 200 cm with 10 cm increments. The dose values were then measured with no radiation protection, a weightless-like radiation protection garment, radiation protection glasses and visors.

Results

The average dose reduction using radiation protection devices varied between 57.7 and 83.4% (p < 0.05) in comparison with no radiation protection. Some radiation protection glasses and visors showed a significant dose reduction for the eye lenses when the height of the examiner increased. The right eye was partially less protected, especially if the distances between the simulated examiner’s head and the scatter object were small.

Conclusion

All the investigated protection devices showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to the simulated examiner. For some devices, the radiation dose increased with decreasing distance to the scattering object, especially for the right eye lens.

Keywords

Radiation protection Interventional radiology Radiation protection eye lens 

Notes

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhargavan M. Trends in the utilization of medical procedures that use ionizing radiation. Health Phys. 2008;95(5):612–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chida K, Kaga Y, Haga Y, et al. Occupational dose in interventional radiology procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):138–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Häusler U, Czarwinski R, Brix G. Radiation exposure of medical staff from interventional x-ray procedures: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(8):2000–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Le Heron J, Padovani R, Smith I, et al. Radiation protection of medical staff. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(1):20–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Degiorgio S, Gerasia R, Liotta F, Maruzzelli L, Cortis K, Miraglia R, Luca A. Radiation doses to operators in hepatobiliary interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2018;41(5):772–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):1368–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parikh JR, Geise RA, Bluth EI, Bender CE, Sze G, Jones AK, Human Resources Commission of the American College of Radiology. Potential radiation-related effects on radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rajaraman P, Doody MM, Yu CL, et al. Cancer risks in US radiologic technologists working with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, 1994–2008. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(5):1101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stahl CM, Meisinger QC, Andre MP, et al. Radiation risk to the fluoroscopy operator and staff. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(4):737–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antic V, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Rehani M, et al. Eye lens dosimetry in interventional cardiology: results of staff dose measurements and link to patient dose levels. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2013;154(3):276–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haga Y, Chida K, Kaga Y, et al. Occupational eye dose in interventional cardiology procedures. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Efstathopoulos EP, Pantos I, Andreou M, et al. Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(997):70–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37(2–4).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ICRP (2012) ICRP statement on tissue reactions/early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs—threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. ICRP Publication 118. Ann. ICRP 41(1/2).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hristova-Popova J, Zagorska A, Saltirov I, et al. Risk of radiation exposure to medical staff involved in interventional endourology. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;165(1–4):268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas RP, Grau M, Eldergash O, et al. Will X-ray safety glasses become mandatory for radiological vascular interventions? Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2018;41(7):1074–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sommer M, Jahn A, Henniger J. Beryllium oxide as apically stimulated luminescence dosimeter. Radiat Meas. 2008;43:353–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marichal DA, Anwar T, Kirsch D, et al. Comparison of a Suspended radiation protection system versus standard lead apron for radiation exposure of a simulated interventionalist. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(4):437–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galster M, Guhl C, Uder M, Adamus R. Exposition of the operator´s eye lens and efficacy of radiation shielding in fluoroscopically guided interventions. Rofo. 2013;185:474–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fetterly K, Schueler B, Grams M, Sturchio G, Bell M, Gulati R. Head and neck radiation dose and radiation safety for interventional physicians. Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;10(5):520–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meisinger QC, Stahl CM, Andre MP, Kinney TB, Newton IG. Radiation protection for the fluoroscopy operator and staff. AJR. 2016;207:745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hu P, Kong Y, Chen B, et al. Shielding effect of lead glasses on radiologists eye lens exposure in interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2017;174(1):136–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinic of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyPhilipps-University of MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation ProtectionMittelhessen University of Applied SciencesGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations