Volume 1, Issue 1 (April 2016)

Original research papers

Radiation Protection


Olivera Ciraj-Bjelac, Danijela Arandjic, Predrag Bozovic, Sandra Ceklic, Jelena Stankovic, Djordje Lazarevic

Pages: 57-61

DOI: 10.21175/RadJ.2016.01.11

Received: 15 MAR 2015, Received revised: 08 APR 2015, Accepted: 12 APR 2015, Published Online: 28 APR 2016

Fluoroscopy procedures may lead to increased radiation exposure of radiologists and other staff members. The objective of the study is to assess whole body radiation doses and doses to the eye in fluoroscopy procedures, based on measurements that allow for estimates of occupational doses when personal dosimeters have not been used. Four geometrical configurations were considered: overcouch x-ray tube with and without table mounted lead rubber curtains in place, undercouch x-ray tube with horizontal x-ray beam and undercouch x-ray tube with vertical x-ray beam. The doses were estimated using distribution of the scattered radiation and typical workload, as well as the pattern of used of protective tools. Estimated effective dose was in the range from few to 60 µSv per procedure for radiologist, and from few to 20 µSv per procedure for radiographer, depending on the geometrical configuration and level of personal protection. Corresponding unprotected eye doses were estimated to be in the range 0.03 – 2.8 mSv per procedure for radiologist and 0.02-0.78 mSv for radiographer. The presented results allowed for realistic estimations of the occupational whole body dose and dose to the eyes from the workload of the staff members and from the level of use of radiation protection tools when personal dosimeters have not been regularly used.
  1. “Avoidance of Radiation Injuries from Medical Interventional Procedures, ICRP Publication 85,” J. Valentin, Ed., Ann. ICRP 30, no. 2, June 2000.
  2. K. Faulkner and B. M. Moores, “An Assessment of the Radiation Dose Received by Staff Using Fluoroscopic Equipment,” Br. J. Radiol., vol. 55, pp. 272-276, May 1982.
    DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-55-652-272
  3. E. Vano, N.J. Kleiman, A. Duran, M. Romano-Miller and M.M. Rehani, “Radiation-Associated Lens Opacities in Catheterization Personnel: Results of a Survey and Direct Assessments,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 197-204, Feb. 2013.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.10.016
  4. E. Vano, N.J. Kleiman, A. Duran, M.M. Rehani, D. Echeverri and M. Cabrera, “Radiation Cataract Risk in Interventional Cardiology Personnel,” Radiat. Res., vol. 174, no. 4, pp. 490-495, Oct. 2010.
    DOI: 10.1667/RR2207.1
  5. M.M. Rehani et al.,. “Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside the Imaging Department. ICRP Publication 117,” Ann. ICRP, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1-102, Dec. 2010.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.03.001
  6. International Commission on Radiological Protection. (April 21, 2011). ICRP ref 4825-3093-1464 Statement on Tissue Reactions. Retrieved from: http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP%20Statement%20on%20Tissue%20Reactions.pdf
  7. O. Ciraj-Bjelac, M. Rehani, A. Minamoto, K.H. Sim, H.B. Liew and E. Vano, “Radiation-Induced Eye Lens Changes and Risk for Cataract in Interventional Cardiology,” Cardiology, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 168-171, Oct. 2012.
    DOI: 10.1159/000342458
  8. Y. Kong, L. Struelens, F. Vanhavere, C.S. Vargas, W. Schoonjans, W.H. Zhuo, “Influence of Standing Positions and Beam Projections on Effective Dose and Eye Lens Dose of Anaesthetists in Interventional Procedures,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim, vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 181-187, Feb. 2015.
    DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncu148
  9. E. Vano, L. Gonzalez, J.M. Fernandez, Z.J. Haskal. “Eye Lens Exposure to Radiation in Interventional Suites: Caution is Warranted,” Radiol., vol. 248, no. 3, pp. 945-953, Sep. 2008.
    DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2482071800
  10. E. Vano, L. Gonzalez, E. Guibelalde, J.M. Fernandez and J.I. Ten, “Radiation Exposure to Medical Staff in Interventional and Cardiac Radiology,” Br. J. Radiol., vol. 71, pp. 974-960, Sep. 1998.
    DOI: 10.1259/bjr.71 .849.10195011
  11. E. Vano, J.M. Fernandez, R. Sanchez, L.T. Dauer, “Realistic Approach to Estimate Lens Doses and Cataract Radiation Risk in Cardiology When Personal Dosimeters Have not Been Regularly Used,” Health Phys., vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 330-339, Oct. 2013.
    DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318299b5d9
  12. C.J. Martin, “A Review of Radiology Staff Doses and Dose Monitoring Requirements,” Rad. Prot. Dos., vol. 136, no. 3, pp. 140-157, Sep. 2009.
    DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncp168
  13. O. Ciraj-Bjelac, M.M. Rehani, “Eye Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology and Cardiology: Current Challenges and Practical Considerations,” Rad. Prot. Dosim., vol. 162, no. 3, Nov. 2013.
    DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nct291
  14. Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 1: General Requirements for Safety. 3. Collateral Standard: General Requirements for Radiation Protection in Diagnostic X-Ray Equipment, IEC 601-1-3, 1994.
  15. International Commission on Radiological Protection. (March, 2007). ICRP Publication 103: The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
  16. Handbook of Anatomical Models for Radiation Dosimetry (Series in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering), 1st ed., X.G. Xu and K.F. Eckerman, Eds., CRC, Taylor and Francis, New York (NY), USA, 2009.