Keisuke Nagamoto1,2, Takashi Moritake2, Koichi Nakagami1,2, Koichi Morota2,3, Satoru Matsuzaki2,3, Shun-Ichi Nihei4, Masayuki Kamochi4, Naoki Kunugita5. 1. Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan. 2. Department of Radiobiology and Hygiene Management, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Shinkomonji Hospital, 2-5 Dairishinmachi, Moji-ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan. 4. Intensive Care Unit, Hospital of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan. 5. Department of Occupational and Community Health Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated occupational dose to the lens of the eye for CT-assisting personnel for diagnostic purposes using a radio-photoluminescent glass dosimeter (RPLD) and evaluate compliance with the new equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye (20 mSv/year). Further, we proposed the implementation of "multiple protective measures" and estimated its effect. METHOD: An eye lens dosimeter clip was developed specifically to attach RPLDs inside radiation safety glasses in an L-shape. Using a total of six RPLDs attached to the radiation safety glasses, the 3-mm dose-equivalent (Hp(3)) to the lens of the eye for medical staff (n = 11; 6 intensive care physicians, 2 pediatricians, 3 radiological technologists) who assisted patients during CT scan for "diagnostic" purpose (n = 91) was measured. We evaluated the dose reduction efficiencies with radiation safety glasses and bag-valve-mask extension tube. We also estimated the protection efficiency with radiation protection curtain introduced in front of the staff's face via the phantom experiment. RESULTS: Without wearing radiation safety glasses, Hp(3) to the lens of the eye was greatest for intensive care physicians (0.49 mSv/procedure; allowing 40 procedures to be performed annually), followed by pediatricians (0.30 mSv/procedure; 66 procedures annually) and radiological technologists (0.28 mSv/procedure; 71 procedures annually). Use of each type of protective tools: radiation safety glasses (0.07-mm-Pb), bag-valve-mask extension tube (20 cm) and radiation protective curtain (0.25-mm-Pb), reduced Hp(3) to the lens of the eye by 51%, 31% and 61%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intensive care physicians perform most assisted ventilations with the bag-valve-mask during "diagnostic" CT scans, and may exceed the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye if radiation safety glasses are not worn. If "multiple protective measures" are implemented, compliance with the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye should be achievable without placing significant burdens on physicians or medical institutions.
PURPOSE: We investigated occupational dose to the lens of the eye for CT-assisting personnel for diagnostic purposes using a radio-photoluminescent glass dosimeter (RPLD) and evaluate compliance with the new equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye (20 mSv/year). Further, we proposed the implementation of "multiple protective measures" and estimated its effect. METHOD: An eye lens dosimeter clip was developed specifically to attach RPLDs inside radiation safety glasses in an L-shape. Using a total of six RPLDs attached to the radiation safety glasses, the 3-mm dose-equivalent (Hp(3)) to the lens of the eye for medical staff (n = 11; 6 intensive care physicians, 2 pediatricians, 3 radiological technologists) who assisted patients during CT scan for "diagnostic" purpose (n = 91) was measured. We evaluated the dose reduction efficiencies with radiation safety glasses and bag-valve-mask extension tube. We also estimated the protection efficiency with radiation protection curtain introduced in front of the staff's face via the phantom experiment. RESULTS: Without wearing radiation safety glasses, Hp(3) to the lens of the eye was greatest for intensive care physicians (0.49 mSv/procedure; allowing 40 procedures to be performed annually), followed by pediatricians (0.30 mSv/procedure; 66 procedures annually) and radiological technologists (0.28 mSv/procedure; 71 procedures annually). Use of each type of protective tools: radiation safety glasses (0.07-mm-Pb), bag-valve-mask extension tube (20 cm) and radiation protective curtain (0.25-mm-Pb), reduced Hp(3) to the lens of the eye by 51%, 31% and 61%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intensive care physicians perform most assisted ventilations with the bag-valve-mask during "diagnostic" CT scans, and may exceed the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye if radiation safety glasses are not worn. If "multiple protective measures" are implemented, compliance with the equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye should be achievable without placing significant burdens on physicians or medical institutions.
Keywords:
CT-assisting personnel for diagnostic CT scan; Industrial health management; Multiple protective measures; Occupational dose to the lens of the eye; Radio-photoluminescent glass dosimeter
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Patric Kröpil; Christian Buchbender; Joel Aissa; Rotem S Lanzman; Till A Heusner; Klaus Ewen; Gerald Antoch; Günther Fürst Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Bart D van Rooijen; Michiel W de Haan; Marco Das; Carsten W K P Arnoldussen; R de Graaf; Wim H van Zwam; Walter H Backes; Cécile R L P N Jeukens Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2013-11-02 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: F A Stewart; A V Akleyev; M Hauer-Jensen; J H Hendry; N J Kleiman; T J Macvittie; B M Aleman; A B Edgar; K Mabuchi; C R Muirhead; R E Shore; W H Wallace Journal: Ann ICRP Date: 2012-02
Authors: E H Silva; Ž Knežević; L Struelens; P Covens; S Ueno; F Vanhavere; N Buls Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 0.972