At present, interventional radiology (IVR) tends to involve long procedures (long radiation duration), and physicians are near to the source of scattered radiation. Hence, shielding is critical in protecting physicians from radiation. Protective aprons and additional lead-shielding devices, such as tableside lead drapes, are important means of protecting the physician from scattered radiation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether non-lead aprons are effective in protecting physicians from radiation during IVR procedures. In this study, the radiation protection effects of commercially available protective lead and non-lead aprons, when exposed to diagnostic X rays, are compared. The performance of these non-lead and lead aprons was similar for scattered X rays at tube voltages of 60–120 kV. Properly designed non-lead aprons are thus more suitable for physicians because they weigh ∼20% less than the lead aprons, and are non-toxic.

OBJECTIVE. Currently, cardiac interventional radiology equipment has tended toward using flat-panel detectors (FPDs) instead of image intensifiers (IIs) because FPDs offer better imaging performance. However, the radiation dose from an FPD in cardiac interventional radiology is not clear. The purpose of our study was to measure the radiation doses during cineangiography and fluoroscopy of many cardiac radiology systems that use FPDs or IIs, in clinical settings.MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study examined 20 radiology systems in 15 cardiac catheterization laboratories (11 used FPD and nine used II). The entrance surface doses with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared for the 20 systems using acrylic plates (20-cm thick) and a skin dose monitor.RESULTS. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface doses of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plates were identical for FPD (average ± SD, 16.63 ± 7.89 mGy/min; range, 5.7–26.4 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 4.63) and II (17.81 ± 12.52 mGy/min; range, 6.5–42.2 m...

Real-time monitoring of the radiation doses received by interventional radiology (IR) staff has become highly desirable. However, occupational doses are rarely measured in real time, due to the lack of a feasible method for use in IR. Recently, the i2 system by RaySafe™ has been introduced to measure occupational exposure in IR in real time. The i2 system consists of several personal dosimeters (PDs) and a base station with a display and computer interfacing. We evaluated the fundamental performance (dose linearity, dose-rate dependence, angular dependence, batch uniformity and reproducibility) of the i2 system. The dose linearity of the i2 was excellent (R(2) = 1.00) The i2 exhibited slight dose-rate dependence (~20%) at very high dose rates (250 mGy h(-1)). Little angular dependence (within 20%) was observed between 0° and ±45°, in either the vertical or horizontal direction. We also found that the PD was highly sensitive (about 200%) at angles behind it, e.g. 180°. However, this backscattered radiation is not a problem, in general, due to the placement of the i2 sensor (PD) on the lead apron. We conclude that the i2 system facilitates accurate real-time monitoring and management of occupational doses during IR.

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.

In computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions (CTIs), physicians are close to a source of scattered radiation. The physician and staff are at high risk of radiation-induced injury (cataracts). Thus, dose-reducing measures for physicians are important. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians in CTIs. This study evaluated the radiation dose to the physician and medical staff using multi detector (MD)CT-fluoroscopy, and attempted to understand radiation-protection and -reduction methods. The procedures were performed using an interventional radiology (IVR)-CT system. We measured the occupational radiation dose (physician and nurse) using a personal dosimeter in real-time, gathered CT-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, mAs, CT dose index (CTDI), and dose length product (DLP)), and performed consecutive 232 procedures in CT-guided biopsy. Physician doses (eye lens, neck, and hand; μSv, average ± SD) in our CTIs were 39.1 ± 36.3, 23.1 ± 23.7, and 28.6 ± 31.0, respectively. Nurse doses (neck and chest) were lower (2.3 ± 5.0 and 2.4 ± 4.4, respectively) than the physician doses. There were significant correlations between the physician doses (eye and neck) and related factors, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs (eye dose: r = 0.90 and neck dose: r = 0.83). We need to understand the importance of reducing/optimizing the dose to the physician and medical staff in CTIs. Our study suggests that physician and staff doses were not significant when the procedures were performed with the appropriate radiation protection and low-dose techniques.