Evaluating Eye Lens Dose of Neurovascular and Cardiac Electrophysiology Interventional Physician

Purpose: The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended that interventional radiologies (IRs) have high radiation doses and that staff may also be exposed to high doses. In the present study, we measured the radiation exposure dose [3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3) ] in the eye usin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 2020, Vol.76(1), pp.26-33
Hauptverfasser: Kato, Mamoru, Chida, Koichi, Ishida, Takato, Sasaki, Fumiaki, Toyoshima, Hideto, Osaka, Hajime, Kinoshita, Toshibumi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:jpn
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose: The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended that interventional radiologies (IRs) have high radiation doses and that staff may also be exposed to high doses. In the present study, we measured the radiation exposure dose [3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3) ] in the eye using an appropriate dosimeter placed next to the physician’ s eye during neurovascular intervention procedure (Neuro-IR) and interventional cardiac electrophysiology procedure (EP-IR). Method: Physicians wore a direct eye dosemeter just lateral to the left eye and an additional direct eye dosemeter outside the radiation protective glasses close to their left eye. Additionally, a neck badge [0.07 mm dose equivalent, Hp (0.07) ] was worn outside the protective apron to the left of the neck, to compare the direct eye dosimeter estimated doses. The occupational eye lens dose was evaluated over a period of 6-month. Results: The maximum Hp (3) of the Neuro-IR physician was estimated 5.1 mSv without the radiation protective glasses and 1.6 mSv with the radiation protective glasses. On the other hand, the maximum Hp (3) of the EP-IR physician was estimated 29 mSv without the radiation protective glasses and 15 mSv with the radiation protective glasses. Conclusion: Physicians eye lens dose [Hp (3) ] tended to be overestimated by the neck badge measurements [Hp (0.07)]. A correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp (3) ] using the direct eye dosimeter is recommended. Although we found a positive correlation between Hp (0.07) and Hp (3), the value of R2 in the regression equation is low, we recommended that the eye lens dose estimated carefully from Hp (0.07).
ISSN:0369-4305
1881-4883
DOI:10.6009/jjrt.2020_JSRT_76.1.26