Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radiation exposure of operator performing interventional procedures using a flat panel angiography system: evaluation with photoluminescence glass dosimeters

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Using glass rod dosimeters we investigated the radiation dose to the operator performing interventional procedures in 43 patients with the aid of a monoplane flat detector-based angiography system.

Materials and methods

During the procedures we recorded the number of radiographic frames and the radiographic conditions. After treatment we recorded the fluoroscopy time and the fluoroscopic, radiographic, and total air kerma. To obtain the total operator exposure dose we took measurements at five sites: left orbital fossa, thyroid, left hand, left chest, and pubic symphysis.

Results

The mean operator exposure dose to the left hand was higher than at the other sites we measured; it was 387.0, 209.6, 174.3, and 237.1 μGy for the stentgraft, percutaneous transluminal arteriography, transarterial chemoembolization, and hepatic infusion port placement procedures. There was a positive correlation between the fluoroscopic and radiographic air kerma value and the operator exposure dose at the left orbital fossa, thyroid, and left hand.

Conclusion

The operator exposure dose correlated with the radiographic and fluoroscopic air kerma. Exposure of the operator’s left hand was higher than at the other sites studied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Korner M, Weber CH, Wirth S, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser MF, Treitl M. Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics 2007;27:675–686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Strotzer M, Volk M, Wild T, von Landenberg P, Feuerbach S. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodideamorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 2000;215:512–515.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Suzuki S, Furui S, Kobayashi I, Yamauchi T, Kohtake H, Takeshita K, et al. Radiation dose to patients and radiologists during transcatheter arterial embolization: comparison of a digital flat-panel system and conventional unit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:855–859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Image quality vs. radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1704–1709.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ilgit ET, Meric N, Bor D, Oznur I, Konus O, Isik S. Lens of the eye: radiation dose in balloon dacryocystoplasty. Radiology 2000;217:54–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nikolic B, Spies JB, Lundsten MJ, Abbara S. Patient radiation dose associated with uterine artery embolization. Radiology 2000;214:121–125.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller DL, Balter S, Noonan PT, Georgia JD. Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures. Radiology 2002;225:329–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Oxford: Pergamon, Elsevier Science; 2000.

  9. McParland BJ. Entrance skin dose estimates derived from dose-area product measurements in interventional radiological procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71:1288–1295.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Juszkat R, Blaszak MA, Majewska N, Majewski W. Dosearea product of patients undergoing digital subtraction angiography (DSA): abdominal aorta and lower limb examinations. Health Phys 2009;96:13–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoshi Y, Nomura T, Oda T, Iwasaki T, Fujita K, Ishikawa T, et al. Application of a newly developed photoluminescence glass dosimeter for measuring the absorbed dose in individual mice exposed to low-dose rate 137Cs gamma-rays. J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 2000;41:129–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hayashi N, Sakai T, Kitagawa M, Inagaki R, Yamamoto T, Fukushima T, et al. Radiation exposure to interventional radiologists during manual-injection digital subtraction angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1998;21:240–243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hidajat N, Wust P, Felix R, Schroder RJ. Radiation exposure to patient and staff in hepatic chemoembolization: risk estimation of cancer and deterministic effects. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006;29:791–796.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nickoloff EL, Lu ZF, Dutta A, So J, Balter S, Moses J. Influence of flat-panel fluoroscopic equipment variables on cardiac radiation doses. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007;30:169–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Vano E, Parviainen T, Padovani R, Dowling A, et al. Correlation of patient and staff doses in interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;117:26–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Christodoulou EG, Goodsitt MM, Larson SC, Darner KL, Satti J, Chan HP. Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter. Med Phys 2003;30:1033–1038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuon E, Schmitt M, Dahm JB. Significant reduction of radiation exposure to operator and staff during cardiac interventions by analysis of radiation leakage and improved lead shielding. Am J Cardiol 2002;89:44–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 4-24-1 Kuhonji, Kumamoto, 862-0976, Japan

    Yoshinori Funama & Masamichi Shimamura

  2. Department of Radiology, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

    Nozomu Nagasue & Kiyotaka Kakei

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduated School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

    Kazuo Awai

  4. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan

    Ichiro Sakamoto & Masataka Uetani

  5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

    Yasuyuki Yamashita

Authors
  1. Yoshinori Funama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nozomu Nagasue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kazuo Awai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ichiro Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kiyotaka Kakei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masamichi Shimamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yasuyuki Yamashita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masataka Uetani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshinori Funama.

About this article

Cite this article

Funama, Y., Nagasue, N., Awai, K. et al. Radiation exposure of operator performing interventional procedures using a flat panel angiography system: evaluation with photoluminescence glass dosimeters. Jpn J Radiol 28, 423–429 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-010-0444-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-010-0444-y

Key words

Search

Navigation