Literature DB >> 17151067

Monte Carlo simulations of occupational radiation doses in interventional radiology.

T Siiskonen1, M Tapiovaara, A Kosunen, M Lehtinen, E Vartiainen.   

Abstract

Occupational radiation doses in interventional radiology can potentially be high. Therefore, reliable methods to assess the effective dose are needed. In the present work, the relationship between the personal dose equivalent, H(p)(10), the reading of a personal dosimeter and the effective dose of the radiologist were studied using Monte Carlo simulations. In particular, the protection provided by a lead apron was investigated. Emphasis was placed on sensitivity of the results to changes in irradiation conditions. In our simulations a 0.35 mm thick lead apron and thyroid shield reduced the effective dose, on average, by a factor of 27 (the range of these data was 15-41). Without the thyroid shield the average reduction factor was 15 (range 6-22). The reduction sensitively depended on the projection and the X-ray tube voltage. The dosimeter reading, when the dosimeter was worn above the apron and a thyroid shield was used, overestimated the effective dose on average by a factor of 130 (range 44-258) when the dosimeter was located on the breast closest to the primary X-ray beam. Without the thyroid shield the average overestimation was 69 (range 32-127). If the dosimeter was worn under the apron its reading generally underestimated the effective dose (on average by 20% with the thyroid shield). Our study indicates that, even though large variations are present, the often used conversion coefficient from the dosimeter reading above the apron to the effective dose, around 1/30, generally overestimates the effective dose by a factor of two or more.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17151067     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/26692771

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  8 in total

Review 1.  Personal dosimetry for interventional operators: when and how should monitoring be done?

Authors:  C J Martin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Occupational radiation doses to operators performing fluoroscopically-guided procedures.

Authors:  Kwang Pyo Kim; Donald L Miller; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Stephen Balter; Ruth A Kleinerman; Evgenia Ostroumova; Steven L Simon; Martha S Linet
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.316

3.  Radiation exposure of medical staff from interventional x-ray procedures: a multicentre study.

Authors:  Uwe Häusler; Renate Czarwinski; Gunnar Brix
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Effect of leaded glasses and thyroid shielding on cone beam CT radiation dose in an adult female phantom.

Authors:  A D Goren; R D Prins; L T Dauer; B Quinn; A Al-Najjar; R D Faber; G Patchell; I Branets; D C Colosi
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Less radiation in a radiology department than at home.

Authors:  Gerrit J Kemerink; Marij J Frantzen; Peter de Jong; Joachim E Wildberger
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-02-15

6.  A novel radiation protection device based on tungsten functional paper for application in interventional radiology.

Authors:  Hajime Monzen; Mikoto Tamura; Kohei Shimomura; Yuichi Onishi; Shinichi Nakayama; Takahiro Fujimoto; Kenji Matsumoto; Kohei Hanaoka; Takeshi Kamomae
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 7.  Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review.

Authors:  Ehsan Abadi; William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Paul E Kinahan; Nick Bottenus; Alejandro F Frangi; Andrew Maidment; Joseph Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-04-11

8.  Cardiac catheterization real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk of cancer.

Authors:  Chun-Yuan Tu; Chung-Jung Lin; Bang-Hung Yang; Jay Wu; Tung-Hsin Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.