CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 717–722 | Cite as

Changes in Dose-Area Product, Entrance Surface Dose, and Lens Dose to the Radiologist in a Vascular Interventional Laboratory when an Old X-ray System Is Exchanged with a New System

  • Kristin JensenEmail author
  • Livia Zangani
  • Anne Catrine Martinsen
  • Gunnar Sandbæk
Clinical Investigation



The aim of this study was to compare dose-area product (DAP), entrance surface dose (ESD), and lens dose to radiologists for an old and a new X-ray system in a vascular interventional laboratory.

Materials and Methods

DAP, ESD, fluoroscopy time, number of images, and patient weight were recorded for patients undergoing the following four procedures: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting (divided into two subgroups, lower extremities and pelvis), nephrostomy, and treatment for varicocele. Halfway through the registration period, the 9-year-old X-ray equipment was exchanged with a new system. Lens doses to the radiologist were measured.


There was a reduction in DAP for all procedures: PTA lower extremities 31% (12–8 Gy cm2), PTA/stenting pelvis 67% (134–44 Gy cm2), nephrostomy 39% (7–4 Gy cm2), and varicocele 70% (37–11 Gy cm2). The reduction in number of images was 17% (158–131), 23% (153–118), 68% (2–1), and 31% (50–35), explaining a part of the dose reduction. The reduction in ESD was 33, 60, 38, and 46%. The differences in measured lens doses indicate a dose reduction in three procedures (19–53%) and an increase in one (56%), but differences are not statistically significant.


DAP and ESD from the X-ray system were reduced for all procedures. The reduction was greater in the more radiation-demanding procedures.


Radiation protection Dosimetry Fluoroscopy DAP ESD Lens doses Vascular intervention PTA Nephrostomy Varicocele 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This study was performed independently of the manufacturer of the devices used.


  1. 1.
    Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paulsen GU (2007) Strålevern Rapport 2009:4. Annual dose statistics from Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority 2007. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås. Accessed 19 July 2010
  3. 3.
    Vano E, Gonzales L, Fernández JM et al (2008) Eye lens exposure to radiation in interventional suites: caution is warranted. Radiology 248:945–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forskrift om strålevern og bruk av stråling (strålevernforskriften) (Norwegian Regulation of Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation) (2003) FOR 2003-11-21 nr 1362.–1362.html. Accessed 19 July 2010
  5. 5.
    Cucinotta FA, Manuel FK, Jones J et al (2001) Space radiation and cataracts in astronauts. Radiat Res 156:460–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chumak VV, Worgul BV, Kundiyev YI et al (2007) Dosimetry for a study of low-dose radiation cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers. Radiat Res 167:606–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N et al (2004) Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 77:562–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bogaert E, Bacher K, Lapere R et al (2009) Does digital flat detector technology tip the scale towards better image quality or reduced patient dose in interventional cardiology? Eur J Radiol 72(2):348–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM et al (2007) Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality. Eur Radiol 17:1787–1794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Efstathopoulos EP, Brountzos EN, Alexopoulou E et al (2006) Patient radiation exposure measurements during interventional procedures: a prospective study. Health Phys 91:36–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE et al (2003) Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:977–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aroua A, Rickli H, Stauffer JC et al (2007) How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level. Eur Radiol 17:1621–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vano E, Järvinen H, Kosunen A et al (2008) Patient dose in interventional radiology: a European survey. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dauer LT, Thornton R, Erdi Y et al (2009) Estimating radiation doses to the skin from interventional radiology procedures for a patient population with cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:782–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen K, Zangani L, Martinsen AC et al (2008) Linsedoser til personale ved intervernsjonsprosedyrer. Nordic Society for Radiation Protection—NSFS Proceedings of the NSFS XV Conference, Ålesund, Norway, May 26–30, 2008. Strålevern Rapport 13. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, pp 61–64. Accessed 19 July 2010
  16. 16.
    Lie ØØ, Paulsen GU, Wøhni T (2008) Assessment of effective dose and dose to the lens of the eye for the interventional cardiologist. Radiat Prot Dosim 132:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin Jensen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Livia Zangani
    • 3
  • Anne Catrine Martinsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gunnar Sandbæk
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.The Interventional CentreOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Institute for Hospital MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations