Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1475–1479 | Cite as

Efficacy of Lower-Body Shielding in Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventions

  • Andreas H. Mahnken
  • Martin Sedlmair
  • Christine Ritter
  • Rosemarie Banckwitz
  • Thomas Flohr
Laboratory Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

Computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy-guided interventions pose relevant radiation exposure to the interventionalist. The goal of this study was to analyze the efficacy of lower-body shielding as a simple structural method for decreasing radiation dose to the interventionalist without limiting access to the patient.

Material and Methods

All examinations were performed with a 128-slice dual source CT scanner (12 × 1.2-mm collimation; 120 kV; and 20, 40, 60, and 80 mAs) and an Alderson-Rando phantom. Scatter radiation was measured with an ionization chamber and a digital dosimeter at standardized positions and heights with and without a lower-body lead shield (0.5-mm lead equivalent; Kenex, Harlow, UK). Dose decreases were computed for the different points of measurement.

Results

On average, lower-body shielding decreased scatter radiation by 38.2% within a 150-cm radius around the shielding. This decrease is most significant close to the gantry opening and at low heights of 50 and 100 cm above the floor with a maximum decrease of scatter radiation of 95.9% close to the scanner’s isocentre. With increasing distance to the gantry opening, the effect decreased. There is almost no dose decrease effect at ≥150 above the floor. Scatter radiation and its decrease were linearly correlated with the tube current-time product (r 2 = 0.99), whereas percent scatter radiation decrease was independent of the tube current-time product.

Conclusion

Lower-body shielding is an effective way to decrease radiation exposure to the interventionalist and should routinely be used in CT fluoroscopy-guided interventions.

Keywords

Radiation protection Fluoroscopy Computed tomography Interventional radiology Scatter radiation 

Notes

Conflict of interest

M. S., R. B., and T. F. are employees of Siemens’ Healthcare Sector. A. H. M. and C. R. have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Katada K, Anno H, Takeshita G et al (1994) Development of CT fluoroscopy using fast CT [in Japanese]. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 54:1172–1174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katada K, Kato R, Anno A et al (1996) Guidance with real-time CT fluoroscopy: early clinical experience. Radiology 200:851–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim GR, Hur J, Lee SM et al (2011) CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy: a prospective controlled study to assess radiation doses and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 21:232–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silverman SG, Tuncali K, Adams DF et al (1999) CT-fluoroscopy guided abdominal interventions: techniques, results, and radiation exposure. Radiology 212:673–681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Mey J, Op de Beeck B, Meysman M et al (2000) Real-time CT fluoroscopy: diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Eur J Radiol 32:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahnken AH, Penzkofer T, Grommes J et al (2010) Carbon dioxide-enhanced CT-guided placement of aortic stent-grafts: feasibility in an animal model. J Endovasc Ther 17:332–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paulson EK, Sheafor DH, Enterline DS et al (2001) CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures: techniques and radiation dose to radiologists. Radiology 220:161–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neeman Z, Dromi SA, Sarin S et al (2006) CT fluoroscopy shielding: decreases in scattered radiation for the patient and operator. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1999–2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iida H, Chabatake M, Shimizu M et al (2002) The radiation protective devices for interventional procedures using computed tomography [in Japanese]. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 58:101–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stoeckelhuber BM, Leibecke T, Schulz E et al (2005) Radiation dose to the radiologist’s hand during continuous CT fluoroscopy-guided interventions. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 28:589–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haipt F, Kirsch M, Hosten N (2010) Evaluation of a leaden radiation protection barrier for dose reduction for the physician during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventions [in German]. Rofo 182:512–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanchez R, Vano E, Fernandez JM et al (2010) Staff radiation doses in a real-time display inside the angiography room. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:1210–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shortt CP, Al-Hashimi H, Malone L et al (2007) Staff radiation doses to the lower extremities in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:1206–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Solomon S, Patricu A, Bohlman M et al (2002) Robotically driven interventions: a method of using CT fluoroscopy without radiation exposure to the physician. Radiology 225:277–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hohl C, Suess C, Wildberger JE et al (2008) Dose reduction during CT fluoroscopy: phantom study of angular beam modulation. Radiology 246:519–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nickoloff EL, Khandji A, Dutta A (2000) Radiation doses during CT fluoroscopy. Health Phys 79:675–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parker DL (1982) Optimal short scan convolution reconstruction for fan beam CT. Med Phys 9:254–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas H. Mahnken
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin Sedlmair
    • 3
  • Christine Ritter
    • 4
  • Rosemarie Banckwitz
    • 3
  • Thomas Flohr
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyRWTH AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Applied Medical Engineering Helmholtz InstituteRWTH AachenAachenGermany
  3. 3.Healthcare SectorSiemensForchheimGermany
  4. 4.Niels Bohr InstituteUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations