Kenneth Fetterly1, Beth Schueler2, Michael Grams3, Glenn Sturchio4, Malcolm Bell5, Rajiv Gulati5. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: fetterly.kenneth@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The first aim of this study was to assess the magnitude of radiation dose to tissues of the head and neck of physicians performing x-ray-guided interventional procedures. The second aim was to assess protection of tissues of the head offered by select wearable radiation safety devices. BACKGROUND: Radiation dose to tissues of the head and neck is of significant interest to practicing interventional physicians. However, methods to estimate radiation dose are not generally available, and furthermore, some of the available research relating to protection of these tissues is misleading. METHODS: Using a single representative geometry, scatter radiation dose to a humanoid phantom was measured using radiochromic film and normalized by the radiation dose to the left collar of the radioprotective thorax apron. Radiation protection offered by leaded glasses and by a radioabsorbent surgical cap was measured. RESULTS: In the test geometry, average radiation doses to the unprotected brain, carotid arteries, and ocular lenses were 8.4%, 17%, and 50% of the dose measured at the left collar, respectively. Two representative types of leaded glasses reduced dose to the ocular lens on the side of the physician from which the scatter originates by 27% to 62% but offered no protection to the contralateral eye. The radioabsorbent surgical cap reduced brain dose by only 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: A method by which interventional physicians can estimate dose to head and neck tissues on the basis of their personal dosimeter readings is described. Radiation protection of the ocular lenses by leaded glasses may be incomplete, and protection of the brain by a radioabsorbent surgical cap was minimal.
OBJECTIVES: The first aim of this study was to assess the magnitude of radiation dose to tissues of the head and neck of physicians performing x-ray-guided interventional procedures. The second aim was to assess protection of tissues of the head offered by select wearable radiation safety devices. BACKGROUND: Radiation dose to tissues of the head and neck is of significant interest to practicing interventional physicians. However, methods to estimate radiation dose are not generally available, and furthermore, some of the available research relating to protection of these tissues is misleading. METHODS: Using a single representative geometry, scatter radiation dose to a humanoid phantom was measured using radiochromic film and normalized by the radiation dose to the left collar of the radioprotective thorax apron. Radiation protection offered by leaded glasses and by a radioabsorbent surgical cap was measured. RESULTS: In the test geometry, average radiation doses to the unprotected brain, carotid arteries, and ocular lenses were 8.4%, 17%, and 50% of the dose measured at the left collar, respectively. Two representative types of leaded glasses reduced dose to the ocular lens on the side of the physician from which the scatter originates by 27% to 62% but offered no protection to the contralateral eye. The radioabsorbent surgical cap reduced brain dose by only 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: A method by which interventional physicians can estimate dose to head and neck tissues on the basis of their personal dosimeter readings is described. Radiation protection of the ocular lenses by leaded glasses may be incomplete, and protection of the brain by a radioabsorbent surgical cap was minimal.
Authors: Kevin A Wunderle; Mina K Chung; Sripriya Rayadurgam; Mark A Miller; Nancy A Obuchowski; Bruce D Lindsay Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Konstantin N Loganovsky; Donatella Marazziti; Pavlo A Fedirko; Kostiantyn V Kuts; Katerina Y Antypchuk; Iryna V Perchuk; Tetyana F Babenko; Tetyana K Loganovska; Olena O Kolosynska; George Y Kreinis; Marina V Gresko; Sergii V Masiuk; Federico Mucci; Leonid L Zdorenko; Alessandra Della Vecchia; Natalia A Zdanevich; Natalia A Garkava; Raisa Y Dorichevska; Zlata L Vasilenko; Victor I Kravchenko; Nataliya V Drosdova Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2020-04-16
Authors: Adrien Guenego; Pascal J Mosimann; Max Wintermark; Jeremy J Heit; Kevin Zuber; Tomas Dobrocky; Jean Albert Lotterie; Patrick Nicholson; David G Marcellus; Jean Marc Olivot; Nestor Gonzalez; Raphaël Blanc; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Jan Gralla; Johannes Kaesmacher; Robert Fahed; Michel Piotin; Christophe Cognard Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Christiane Behr-Meenen; Heiner von Boetticher; Jan Felix Kersten; Albert Nienhaus Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 3.390