Advertisement

Dose to the interventional radiologist in CTF-guided procedures

  • J. G. AlvesEmail author
  • S. Sarmento
  • J. S. Pereira
  • M. F. Pereira
  • M. J. Sousa
  • L. Cunha
  • A. Dias
  • A. D. Oliveira
  • J. V. Cardoso
  • L. M. Santos
  • J. Lencart
  • M. Gouvêa
  • J. A. M. Santos
Original Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this work was to assess the occupational dose received by an interventional radiologist (IR) during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided procedures; to identify the most exposed areas of the body including the hands and fingers; to suggest recommendations for individual monitoring; and to improve radiation safety of the practice. A total of 53 CTF-guided procedures were studied. Twelve whole-body dosimeters were worn by the IR in each procedure for the assessment of the personal dose equivalent, Hp(10), on the chest, waist, and back, both over and under the lead apron, as well as the personal dose equivalent, Hp(0.07), on both arms, knees, and feet. Special gloves with casings to fit extremity dosimeters were prepared to assess Hp(0.07) to the fingers. The measured chest dose values were higher than those on the waist and back; the dominant hand or the left side was the most exposed. In general, the ring, middle, and index fingers of the dominant hand were the most exposed (maximum in the 36–39 mSv range), while wrist dose was negligible compared to finger doses. Based on the results obtained the following recommendations are suggested: protective devices (lead aprons, thyroid shield, and goggles) should be worn; Hp(10) should be assessed at the chest level both above and below the lead apron; finger doses can be measured on the basis of each middle finger; the arm closer to the beam should be monitored; and finally, a wrist dosimeter will not provide useful information.

Keywords

CTF Radiation dose assessment Dosimetry Interventional radiology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the members of the Interventional Radiology team who collaborated with this work, including nurses who collected patient biometric data and radiology technicians that assisted with CT data collection and gave valuable input regarding scanning protocols. This work was funded by FEDER – Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional funds through the program Operating Competitiveness Factors - COMPETE and National Funds by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under the project reference PTDC/SAU-ENB/115792/2009.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alves JG, Calado AM, Cardoso JV, Santos LM (2008) Energy and angular dependence of the personal dosemeter in use at ITN/DPRSN. Radiat Meas 43:641–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buls N, De Mey J (2007) Dose reduction in CT fluoroscopy. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA (eds) Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buls N, Pagés J, De Mey J, Osteaux M (2003) Evaluation of patient and staff doses during various CT-fluoroscopy-guided interventions. Health Phys 85:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daly B, Templeton P, Krebs TL, Carroll K, Wong-You-Cheong JJ (1998) Evaluation of biopsy needles and prototypic needle guide devices for percutaneous biopsy with CT fluoroscopic guidance in simulated organ tissue. Radiology 209:850–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decreto-Lei 167, Diário da República. Imprensa Nacional da Casa da Moeda (2002), pp 5381–5392Google Scholar
  6. Decreto-Lei 184, Diário da República. Imprensa Nacional da Casa da Moeda (2015), pp 6615–6631Google Scholar
  7. Decreto-Lei 222, Diário da República. Imprensa Nacional da Casa da Moeda (2008), pp 8000–8013Google Scholar
  8. Freire LC, Pereira MF, Calado AM, Santos LM, Cardoso JV, Alves JG (2011) Evaluation of the performance of two LiF:Mg,Ti and LiF:Mg,Cu, P dosemeters for extremity monitoring. Radiat Prot Dosim 144:140–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirning CR (1992) Detection and determination limits for thermoluminescence dosimetry. Health Phys 62:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency (2006) Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice. Technical Reports Series n 457Google Scholar
  11. ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection (2000) Managing patient dose in computed tomography. ICRP Publication, London, p 87Google Scholar
  12. Irie T, Kajitani M, Itai Y (2001) CT fluoroscopy-guided intervention: marked reduction of scattered radiation dose to the physician’s hand by use of a lead plate and an improved I-I device. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:1417–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Irie T, Kajitani M, Matsueda K, Arai Y, Inaba Y, Kujiraoka Y, Itai Y (2001) Biopsy of lung nodules with use of I-I device under intermittent CT fluoroscopic guidance: preliminary clinical study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO IEC, International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission (2005) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 17025Google Scholar
  15. ISO, International Organization for Standardization (1991) X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and dose rate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy. ISO Standard 4037-3Google Scholar
  16. ISO, International Organization for Standardization (1996) X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and dose rate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy. ISO Standard 4037-1Google Scholar
  17. ISO, International Organization for Standardization (2000) Nuclear Energy—radiation protection—individual thermoluminescence dosemeters for extremities and eyes. ISO Standard 12794Google Scholar
  18. Katada K, Kato R, Anno H, Ogura Y, Koga S, Ida Y, Sato M, Nonomura K (1996) Guidance with real-time CT fluoroscopy: early clinical experience. Radiology 200:851–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kato R, Katada K, Anno H, Suzuki S, Ida Y, Koga S (1996) Radiation dosimetry at CT fluoroscopy: physician's hand dose and development of needle holders. Radiology 201:576–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keat N (2001) Real-time CT and CT fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 74:1088–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kloechner R, Pinto dos Santos D, Schneider J, Kara L, Dueber C, Pitton MB (2013) Radiation Exposure in CT-guided interventions. Eur J Radiol 82:2253–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kron T (1999) Applications of thermoluminescence dosimetry in medicine. Radiat Prot Dosim 85:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lucas PA, Dance DR, Castellano IA, Vañó E (2005) Estimation of the peak entrance surface air kerma for patients undergoing computed tomography-guided procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim 114(1–3):317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKeever SWS (1985) Thermoluminescence of solids. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKeever SWS, Moscovitch M, Townsend PD (1995) Thermoluminescence dosimetry materials—properties and uses. Nuclear Technology Publishing, KentGoogle Scholar
  26. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Silverman SG, Hooton S, Tuncali K, Adams DF (2000) Patient and personnel exposure during CT-fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 216:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neeman Z, Dromi SA, Sarin S, Wood BJ (2006) CT-fluoroscopy-shielding: decreases in scattered radiation for the patient and operator. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1999–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Noppen MM, De Mey J, Meysman M, Opdebeeck B, Vincken WG, Osteaux M (1995) Percutaneous needle biopsy of localized pulmonary, mediastinal, and pleural diseased tissue with an automatic disposable guillotine soft-tissue needle Preliminary results. Chest 107:1615–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paulson EK, Sheafor DH, Enterline DS, McAdams HP, Yoshizumi TT (2001) CT-fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures: techniques and radiation dose to radiologists. Radiology 220:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pereira MF, Alves JG, Sarmento S, Santos JA, Sousa MJ, Gouvêa M, Oliveira AD, Cardoso JV, Santos LM (2011) Preliminary assessment of the dose to the interventional radiologist in fluoro-CT-guided procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim 144:448–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pereira J, Pereira MF, Rangel S, Saraiva M, Santos LM, Cardoso JV, Alves JG (2016) Fading effect of LiF:Mg,Ti and LiF:Mg,Cu,P for Ext-Rad and whole-body detectors. Radiat Prot Dosim 170(1–4):177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarmento S, Pereira J, Sousa MJ, Cunha LT, Dias AG, Pereira MF, Oliveira AD, Cardoso JV, Santos LM, Santos JAM, Alves JG (2018) The use of needle holders in CTF-guided biopsies as a dose reduction tool. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(1):250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silverman SG, Tuncali K, Adams DF, Nawfel RD, Zou KH, Judy PF (1999) CT-fluoroscopy-guided abdominal interventions: techniques, results and radiation exposure. Radiology 212:673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoeckelhuber BM, Leibecke T, Schulz E, Melchert UH, Bergmann-Koester CU, Helmberger T, Gellissen J (2005) Radiation dose to the radiologist’s hand during continuous CT-fluoroscopy-guided interventions. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 28:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. European Union (1996) Council Directive 1996/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. Official Journal of the European Union L159Google Scholar
  36. European Union (2013) Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down the basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionizing radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal of the European Union L13Google Scholar
  37. vanSonnenberg E, Casola G, Ho M, Neff CC, Varney RR, Wittich GR, Christensen R, Friedman PJ (1988) Difficult thoracic lesions: CT-guided biopsy experience in 150 cases. Radiology 167:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. G. Alves
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. Sarmento
    • 3
    • 4
  • J. S. Pereira
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. F. Pereira
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. J. Sousa
    • 5
  • L. Cunha
    • 3
    • 4
  • A. Dias
    • 3
    • 4
  • A. D. Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. V. Cardoso
    • 1
  • L. M. Santos
    • 1
  • J. Lencart
    • 3
  • M. Gouvêa
    • 6
  • J. A. M. Santos
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Laboratório de Proteção e Segurança Radiológica (LPSR)Universidade de Lisboa (UL)Bobadela LRSPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de Engenharia e Ciências Nucleares (DECN), Centro de Ciências e Tecnologias Nucleares (C2TN)UL-ISTBobadela LRSPortugal
  3. 3.Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil, EPE (IPOPFG E.P.E.), Serviço de Física MédicaPortoPortugal
  4. 4.Centro de InvestigaçãoIPOPFG E.P.E.PortoPortugal
  5. 5.Serviço de Radiologia de IntervençãoIPOPFG E.P.E.PortoPortugal
  6. 6.Serviço de RadiologiaIPOPFG E.P.E.PortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations