Dataset Information

A multicenter study of radiation doses to the eye lenses of clinical physicians performing radiology procedures in Japan.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We investigated occupational dose to the lens of the eye for physicians engaged in radiology procedures. We evaluated the potential for compliance with the new-equivalent dose limits to the lens of the eye. Further, a "multiple radiation protection" protocol was proposed according to the basic principles of occupational health, and its effectiveness was estimated.

Methods

Physicians engaged in radiology procedure at medical facilities in Japan were included in this study. The eye lens dose (3-mm dose equivalent: H_p (3)) for each participant was measured using a small radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter mounted on lead glasses. Physicians were directed to procedure multiple radiation protection measures to evaluate their usefulness.

Results

The H_p (3) was reduced by multiple radiation protection in all physicians. In particular, the H_p (3) reduced from 207.7 to 43.2 μSv/procedure and from 21.6 to 10.2 μSv/procedure in cardiovascular internal physician and cerebrovascular physician, respectively, after the implementation of the proposed multiple radiation protection measures. The dose reduction rate of these measures was 53% (range: 37%-79%).

Conclusions

The radiation doses received by the eye lenses of physicians engaged in radiology procedure may exceed the dose limits to the lens of the eye if radio-protective equipment and imaging conditions are not properly controlled. However, based on the lens equivalent dose data, the implementation of "multiple radiation protection" according to the basic principles of occupational health can ensure compliance with the new-equivalent dose limits to the lens of the eye without placing an undue burden on individual physicians or medical facilities.

SUBMITTER: Nagamoto K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8662660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P = .96) or those who wore two badges (P = .23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquartile range, 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P = .18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Karellas in this issue.