Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Will X-ray Safety Glasses Become Mandatory for Radiological Vascular Interventions?

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The annual permissible radiation ocular lens dose has been reduced to 20 millisieverts (mSv) in the current European directive 2013/59/Euratom. The aim of this study was to evaluate the personal radiation dose for vascular interventions with special focus on ocular lens dose.

Materials and Methods

From May 2016 to October 2016, the personal radiation doses of two interventionists and four technicians were prospectively recorded during 206 vascular interventions. The position of personnel, intervention type and fluoroscopy time were recorded. Parameters evaluated were total body dose measured by film dosimeter, hand dose measured by ring thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and ocular lens dose measured by TLD placed in front of the safety glasses. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the dose at 2 and 5 years.

Results

The ocular lens dose, hand and total body dose of the two interventionists were 11/5, 56/47 and 0.6 mSv each, respectively. The estimated 5-year ocular dose was 113.08 mSv (95% CI 38.2–187.97)/40.95 (95% CI 16.9–64.7). Similarly, hand dose was 608.4 mSv (95% CI 442.78–774.38)/514.47 (95% CI 329.83–699.10) and body dose 6.07 mSv (95% CI 4.70–8.22)/5.12 (95% CI 3.65–6.59), respectively. Amongst four technicians, only the first assistant showed recordings of 0.3 mSv body dose, 2 mSv ocular lens dose and 5 mSv hand dose.

Conclusion

The yearly ocular lens dose, particularly for interventionists dealing with complex interventions, could cross the permitted yearly limit set by the new Euratom directive. Therefore, X-ray safety glasses would become mandatory for complex radiological vascular interventions.

Level of Evidence

Level III, non-randomized controlled cohort/follow-up study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. King JN, Champlin AM, Kelsey CA, et al. Using a sterile disposable protective surgical drape for reduction of radiation exposure to interventionists. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:153–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hausler U, Czarwinski R, Brix G. Radiation exposure of medical staff from interventional X-ray procedures: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2000–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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;154:276–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vano E, Gonzales L, Beneyetz F, et al. Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimised interventional radiology laboratories. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:728–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, et al. Radiation cataract risk in interventional cardiology personnel. Radiat Res. 2010;174:490–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ciraj-Bjelac O, Rehani MM, Sim KH, et al. Risk for radiation induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:826–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. European Council Directive. European Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom on basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Off J Eur Union L13. 2014;57:1–73. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/59/oj.

  8. European Society of Radiology (ESR). Summary of the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom: essentials for health professionals in radiology. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(4):411–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0410-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Szumska A, Kopec R, Budzanowski M. Occupational doses of medical staff and their relation to patient exposure incurred in coronary angiography and intervention. Radiat Meas. 2016;84:34–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. De Angelis LM. Brain tumors. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:114–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: A cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of literature. EuroIntervention. 2012;7:1081–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roguin A. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: A call for alarm? Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1850–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown NP. The lens is more sensitive to radiation than we believed. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81:257.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kleimann NJ. Radiation cataract. Ann ICRP. 2012;41:80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakashima K, Neriishi K, Minamoto A. A reanalysis of atomic bomb cataract data, 2000–2002: a threshold analysis. Health Phys. 2006;90:154–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Neriishi K, Nakashima E, Minamoto A, et al. Postoperative cataract cases among atomic bomb survivors: radiation dose response and threshold. Radiat Res. 2007;168:404–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Authors on behalf of ICRP, Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, et al. ICRP publication 118: 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. Ann ICRP. 2012;41:1–322.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ICRP. ICRP Publication 103: The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2–4):1–332.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Domienik J, Brodecki M, Rusicka D. A study of dose distribution in the regions of the eye lens and extremities for staff working in interventional cardiology. Radiat Meas. 2012;47:130–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carinou E, Ginjaume M, Connor O, et al. Status of eye lens radiation dose monitoring in European hospitals. J Radiol Prot. 2014;34:729–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Szumska A, Budzanowski M, Kopec R. Occupational exposure to the whole body, extremities and to the eye lens in interventional radiology in Poland, as based on personal dosimetry records at IFJ PAN. Radiat Phys Chem. 2014;104:72–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Thornton RH, Dauer LT, Altamirano JP, et al. Comparing strategies for operator eye protection in the interventional radiology suite. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:1703–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Koukorava C, Farah J, Struelens L, et al. Efficiency of radiation protection equipment in interventional radiology: a systematic Monte Carlo study of eye lens and whole body doses. J Radiol Prot. 2014;34:504–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Karadag B, Ikitimur B, Durmaz E, et al. Effectiveness of a lead cap in radiation protection of the head in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. EuroIntervention. 2013;9:754–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Christopoulos G, Makke L, Christakapoulos G, et al. Optimizing Radiation safety in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a practical approach. Catheter Cardiovas Interv. 2016;87:291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shoustary A, Islamian JP, Asadinezhad M, et al. An evaluation of the organ dose received by cardiologists arising from angiography examinations in educational hospital in Rasht. Glob J Health Sci. 2016;7:185–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Oldenburg AöR, Rahel Straus Straße 10, 26133, Oldenburg, Germany

    Rohit Philip Thomas, Mathias Grau, Osama Eldergash, Tobias Kowald, Johannes Schnabel & Ajay Chavan

  2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital, Klinikum Oldenburg AöR, Oldenburg, Germany

    Marcin Szczechowicz

Authors
  1. Rohit Philip Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Grau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Osama Eldergash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias Kowald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johannes Schnabel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcin Szczechowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ajay Chavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rohit Philip Thomas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomas, R.P., Grau, M., Eldergash, O. et al. Will X-ray Safety Glasses Become Mandatory for Radiological Vascular Interventions?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41, 1074–1080 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1960-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1960-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation