B Janne d'Othée1, Bertrand Janne d'Othée, Pei-Jan Paul Lin. 1. Section of Interventoinal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-5400, USA. bjanne@caregroup.harvard.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the influence of angiography table height on patient and angiographer irradiation, as compared with other routine protective measures such as the use of protective shields hanging at the tableside and from the ceiling of angiography suites. METHODS: An experimental study was carried out in which a phantom (substitute for a human body) placed on the angiography table was irradiated by pulsed fluoroscopy. Entrance exposure rates were measured at the phantom surface (surrogate of patient skin exposure by incident X-ray beam) and at 60 cm from the phantom (analog to angiographer skin exposure by scatter). Exposure rates were measured at levels corresponding to the knees, testes, waist, xyphoid appendix, shoulders, and eyes of an angiographer 178 cm tall. Measurements were repeated at angiography table heights of 85, 95, 105, and 110 cm from the floor, with and without protective shields. RESULTS: Moving the table from its highest to lowest position increased by 32% the phantom entrance exposure but decreased scatter to the angiographer. Scatter to the angiographer could be reduced most by using the protective shields (30-105 times less), but low table heights provided relatively more important protection (412-1121 muSv/hr reduction, or 15-72% scatter reduction) when shields were not used (e.g., for unprotected regions of the angiographer's body such as the hands). CONCLUSION: Working at lower table heights provides a little additional protection to exposed body parts of angiographers, at the cost of somewhat higher patient exposure. Although small, this incremental protection could be clinically relevant in the long term. The choice of table position should be a compromise based on multiple factors, including at least patient exposure, scatter to angiographers, and angiographer comfort.
PURPOSE: To quantify the influence of angiography table height on patient and angiographer irradiation, as compared with other routine protective measures such as the use of protective shields hanging at the tableside and from the ceiling of angiography suites. METHODS: An experimental study was carried out in which a phantom (substitute for a human body) placed on the angiography table was irradiated by pulsed fluoroscopy. Entrance exposure rates were measured at the phantom surface (surrogate of patient skin exposure by incident X-ray beam) and at 60 cm from the phantom (analog to angiographer skin exposure by scatter). Exposure rates were measured at levels corresponding to the knees, testes, waist, xyphoid appendix, shoulders, and eyes of an angiographer 178 cm tall. Measurements were repeated at angiography table heights of 85, 95, 105, and 110 cm from the floor, with and without protective shields. RESULTS: Moving the table from its highest to lowest position increased by 32% the phantom entrance exposure but decreased scatter to the angiographer. Scatter to the angiographer could be reduced most by using the protective shields (30-105 times less), but low table heights provided relatively more important protection (412-1121 muSv/hr reduction, or 15-72% scatter reduction) when shields were not used (e.g., for unprotected regions of the angiographer's body such as the hands). CONCLUSION: Working at lower table heights provides a little additional protection to exposed body parts of angiographers, at the cost of somewhat higher patient exposure. Although small, this incremental protection could be clinically relevant in the long term. The choice of table position should be a compromise based on multiple factors, including at least patient exposure, scatter to angiographers, and angiographer comfort.