BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced injuries to patient skin as a result of fluoroscopy guided interventional procedures are infrequently reported, often misdiagnosed and there is a need to learn lessons from every injury. METHODS: This paper describes two cases of radiation induced skin injuries that are, to the best of our knowledge, the first ever reported cases from Bulgaria and possibly from Eastern Europe, and would thus have educational value. RESULTS: The important messages from the skin injuries reported here are: lack of awareness among part of the interventional specialists about the potential for radiation induced skin injury, misdiagnosis after injury happened because of lack of awareness and knowledge among general physicians, dermatologists and surgeons who followed up cases of skin injuries; the lack of system to monitor patients with relatively high exposure; the important role played by the medical physicist in diagnosing the injury and overall in initiating actions; the role of training and informational material displayed in interventional facilities. CONCLUSIONS: For avoidance of skin injuries from interventional procedures it is of utmost importance to implement a system that includes (a) regular monitoring of radiation dose parameters of the procedure; (b) established trigger values for reporting; (c) procedure for patient follow-up if a trigger value is exceeded; (d) instructing the patient who has received exposure above the trigger value to self-examine the irradiated area of the skin for any itching/redness and report it back.
BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced injuries to patient skin as a result of fluoroscopy guided interventional procedures are infrequently reported, often misdiagnosed and there is a need to learn lessons from every injury. METHODS: This paper describes two cases of radiation induced skin injuries that are, to the best of our knowledge, the first ever reported cases from Bulgaria and possibly from Eastern Europe, and would thus have educational value. RESULTS: The important messages from the skin injuries reported here are: lack of awareness among part of the interventional specialists about the potential for radiation induced skin injury, misdiagnosis after injury happened because of lack of awareness and knowledge among general physicians, dermatologists and surgeons who followed up cases of skin injuries; the lack of system to monitor patients with relatively high exposure; the important role played by the medical physicist in diagnosing the injury and overall in initiating actions; the role of training and informational material displayed in interventional facilities. CONCLUSIONS: For avoidance of skin injuries from interventional procedures it is of utmost importance to implement a system that includes (a) regular monitoring of radiation dose parameters of the procedure; (b) established trigger values for reporting; (c) procedure for patient follow-up if a trigger value is exceeded; (d) instructing the patient who has received exposure above the trigger value to self-examine the irradiated area of the skin for any itching/redness and report it back.