A M Koenig1, R Etzel2,3, W Greger3, S Viniol2, M Fiebich3, R P Thomas2, A H Mahnken2. 1. Clinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Baldingerstrasse 1, 35043, Marburg, Germany. akoenig@med.uni-marburg.de. 2. Clinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Baldingerstrasse 1, 35043, Marburg, Germany. 3. Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Mittelhessen University of Applied Sciences, Giessen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different designs and types of ocular radiation protection devices depending on simulated varied body heights in a phantom-simulated thoracic intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical angiography system with a standardized fluoroscopy protocol with an anthropomorphic chest phantom as a scattering object and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for measuring radiation dose were used. The dosimeters were placed at the position of eyes of an anthropomorphic head phantom simulating the examiner. The head phantom was placed on a height-adjustable stand simulating the height of the examiner from 160 to 200 cm with 10 cm increments. The dose values were then measured with no radiation protection, a weightless-like radiation protection garment, radiation protection glasses and visors. RESULTS: The average dose reduction using radiation protection devices varied between 57.7 and 83.4% (p < 0.05) in comparison with no radiation protection. Some radiation protection glasses and visors showed a significant dose reduction for the eye lenses when the height of the examiner increased. The right eye was partially less protected, especially if the distances between the simulated examiner's head and the scatter object were small. CONCLUSION: All the investigated protection devices showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to the simulated examiner. For some devices, the radiation dose increased with decreasing distance to the scattering object, especially for the right eye lens.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different designs and types of ocular radiation protection devices depending on simulated varied body heights in a phantom-simulated thoracic intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical angiography system with a standardized fluoroscopy protocol with an anthropomorphic chest phantom as a scattering object and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for measuring radiation dose were used. The dosimeters were placed at the position of eyes of an anthropomorphic head phantom simulating the examiner. The head phantom was placed on a height-adjustable stand simulating the height of the examiner from 160 to 200 cm with 10 cm increments. The dose values were then measured with no radiation protection, a weightless-like radiation protection garment, radiation protection glasses and visors. RESULTS: The average dose reduction using radiation protection devices varied between 57.7 and 83.4% (p < 0.05) in comparison with no radiation protection. Some radiation protection glasses and visors showed a significant dose reduction for the eye lenses when the height of the examiner increased. The right eye was partially less protected, especially if the distances between the simulated examiner's head and the scatter object were small. CONCLUSION: All the investigated protection devices showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to the simulated examiner. For some devices, the radiation dose increased with decreasing distance to the scattering object, especially for the right eye lens.
Authors: Christiane Behr-Meenen; Heiner von Boetticher; Olena Lynnyk; Christoph Langer; Jan Felix Kersten; Albert Nienhaus Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2022-11-12 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Alexander Gangl; Hannes Alexander Deutschmann; Rupert Horst Portugaller; Georg Stücklschweiger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 5.315
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