T R Miller1, J Zhuo2, G Jindal2, R Shivashankar2, N Beaty3, D Gandhi2. 1. From the Departments of Diagnostic Radiology, Neuroradiology (T.R.M., J.Z., G.J., R.S., D.G.) tmiller5@umm.edu. 2. From the Departments of Diagnostic Radiology, Neuroradiology (T.R.M., J.Z., G.J., R.S., D.G.). 3. Neurosurgery (N.B.), University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neurointerventional surgery may expose patients and physician operators to substantial amounts of ionizing radiation. Although strategies for reducing patient exposure have been explored in the medical literature, there has been relatively little published in regards to decreasing operator exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of shielding systems in reducing physician exposure in a modern neurointerventional practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was obtained from operators for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. Operator radiation exposure was prospectively measured during 60 consecutive neurointerventional procedures from October to November 2013 using a 3-part lead shielding system. Exposure was then evaluated without lead shielding in a second 60-procedure block from April to May 2014. A radiation protection drape was randomly selected for use in half of the cases in each block. Two-way analysis of covariance was performed to test the effect of shielding systems on operator exposure while controlling for other covariates, including procedure dose-area product. RESULTS: Mean operator procedure dose was 20.6 μSv for the entire cohort and 17.7 μSv when using some type of shielding. Operator exposure significantly correlated with procedure dose-area product, but not with other covariates. After we adjusted for procedure dose-area product, the use of lead shielding or a radiation protection drape significantly reduced operator exposure by 45% (F = 12.54, P < .0001) and 29% (F = 7.02, P = .009), respectively. The difference in protection afforded by these systems was not statistically significant (P = .46), and their adjunctive use did not provide additional protection. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive lead shielding should be used as much as possible in neurointerventional surgery to reduce operator radiation exposure to acceptable levels. A radiation protection drape is a reasonable alternative when standard lead shielding is unavailable or impractical to use without neglecting strategies to minimize the dose.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neurointerventional surgery may expose patients and physician operators to substantial amounts of ionizing radiation. Although strategies for reducing patient exposure have been explored in the medical literature, there has been relatively little published in regards to decreasing operator exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of shielding systems in reducing physician exposure in a modern neurointerventional practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was obtained from operators for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. Operator radiation exposure was prospectively measured during 60 consecutive neurointerventional procedures from October to November 2013 using a 3-part lead shielding system. Exposure was then evaluated without lead shielding in a second 60-procedure block from April to May 2014. A radiation protection drape was randomly selected for use in half of the cases in each block. Two-way analysis of covariance was performed to test the effect of shielding systems on operator exposure while controlling for other covariates, including procedure dose-area product. RESULTS: Mean operator procedure dose was 20.6 μSv for the entire cohort and 17.7 μSv when using some type of shielding. Operator exposure significantly correlated with procedure dose-area product, but not with other covariates. After we adjusted for procedure dose-area product, the use of lead shielding or a radiation protection drape significantly reduced operator exposure by 45% (F = 12.54, P < .0001) and 29% (F = 7.02, P = .009), respectively. The difference in protection afforded by these systems was not statistically significant (P = .46), and their adjunctive use did not provide additional protection. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive lead shielding should be used as much as possible in neurointerventional surgery to reduce operator radiation exposure to acceptable levels. A radiation protection drape is a reasonable alternative when standard lead shielding is unavailable or impractical to use without neglecting strategies to minimize the dose.
Authors: C Kloeze; E G Klompenhouwer; P J M Brands; M R H M van Sambeek; P W M Cuypers; J A W Teijink Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Michael A Jones; Mary Cocker; Raj Khiani; Paul Foley; Norman Qureshi; Kelvin C K Wong; Kim Rajappan; Timothy R Betts Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Amir R Honarmand; Ali Shaibani; Tamila Pashaee; Furqan H Syed; Michael C Hurley; Christina L Sammet; Matthew B Potts; Babak S Jahromi; Sameer A Ansari Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: D B Orbach; C Stamoulis; K J Strauss; J Manchester; E R Smith; R M Scott; N Lin Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jaclynn M Sawdy; Mark D Gocha; Vincent Olshove; Joanne L Chisolm; Sharon L Hill; Alistair Phillips; Mark Galantowicz; John P Cheatham; Ralf J Holzer Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.022