Limits...
Evaluation of the occupational doses of interventional radiologists.

Kuipers G, Velders XL, de Winter RJ, Reekers JA, Piek JJ - Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (2008)

Bottom Line: The doses above and under the protective aprons of seven radiologists did not differ significantly.There is no evidence that the effective dose can be estimated more accurately when an additional dosimeter is used.Due to the threshold it can be concluded that the doses under the lead apron will not be underestimated easily when doses above the lead apron are used to calculate them.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Radiation Protection Group, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands. g.kuipers@amc.uva.nl

ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to determine whether there is a linear relation between the doses measured above and those measured under the lead apron of the radiologists performing interventional procedures. To monitor radiation exposure the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends the use of a single dosimeter under the protective apron. To determine the exposure more accurately an additional dosimeter is recommended above the protective apron. The exposure of eight radiologists was monitored with two personal dosimeters during 3 consecutive years. To measure the doses uniformly the two dosimeters were worn in a special holder attached to the lead apron. The two personal dosimeters were replaced every 4 weeks on the same day. The doses above and under the protective aprons of seven radiologists did not differ significantly. A significant lower dose above and under the protective apron was measured for one of the radiologists. During a 4-week period the average dose measured above the lead apron was 3.44 mSv (median, 3.05 mSv), while that under the 0.25-mm lead apron was 0.12 mSv (median, 0.1 mSv). The coefficients of the regression line result in the equation Y = 0.036X-0.004, with Y as the dose under the lead apron and X as the dose above the lead apron. The statistical analysis of the data established a linear relation between the doses above and those under the lead apron (R(2) = 0.59). Before the special holder was introduced it was not possible to derive a relation between the doses above and those under the lead apron, as the doses were measured at varying places above and under the lead apron. There is no evidence that the effective dose can be estimated more accurately when an additional dosimeter is used. The present study revealed a threshold before doses under the lead apron were measured. Due to the threshold it can be concluded that the doses under the lead apron will not be underestimated easily when doses above the lead apron are used to calculate them. This is not the case when the doses above the lead apron are calculated for the doses under the lead apron.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

The specially designed holder with the two personal dosimeters
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2367387&req=5

Fig2: The specially designed holder with the two personal dosimeters

Mentions: From 2004 onward the occupational doses of eight radiologists involved in interventional fluoroscopically guided procedures were monitored by means of two personal dosimeters. The personal dosimeters were used to measure the doses above and under the lead aprons of the radiologists. To receive consistent measurements the two dosimeters were worn in a specially designed holder that was fixed to the lead apron (Figs. 1 and 2). The holder with the two personal dosimeters was worn breast-high. The two dosimeters were replaced every 4 weeks on the same day, while the holder remained fixed to the lead apron during the whole study.Fig. 1


Evaluation of the occupational doses of interventional radiologists.

Kuipers G, Velders XL, de Winter RJ, Reekers JA, Piek JJ - Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (2008)

The specially designed holder with the two personal dosimeters
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2367387&req=5

Fig2: The specially designed holder with the two personal dosimeters
Mentions: From 2004 onward the occupational doses of eight radiologists involved in interventional fluoroscopically guided procedures were monitored by means of two personal dosimeters. The personal dosimeters were used to measure the doses above and under the lead aprons of the radiologists. To receive consistent measurements the two dosimeters were worn in a specially designed holder that was fixed to the lead apron (Figs. 1 and 2). The holder with the two personal dosimeters was worn breast-high. The two dosimeters were replaced every 4 weeks on the same day, while the holder remained fixed to the lead apron during the whole study.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The doses above and under the protective aprons of seven radiologists did not differ significantly.There is no evidence that the effective dose can be estimated more accurately when an additional dosimeter is used.Due to the threshold it can be concluded that the doses under the lead apron will not be underestimated easily when doses above the lead apron are used to calculate them.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Radiation Protection Group, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands. g.kuipers@amc.uva.nl

ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to determine whether there is a linear relation between the doses measured above and those measured under the lead apron of the radiologists performing interventional procedures. To monitor radiation exposure the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends the use of a single dosimeter under the protective apron. To determine the exposure more accurately an additional dosimeter is recommended above the protective apron. The exposure of eight radiologists was monitored with two personal dosimeters during 3 consecutive years. To measure the doses uniformly the two dosimeters were worn in a special holder attached to the lead apron. The two personal dosimeters were replaced every 4 weeks on the same day. The doses above and under the protective aprons of seven radiologists did not differ significantly. A significant lower dose above and under the protective apron was measured for one of the radiologists. During a 4-week period the average dose measured above the lead apron was 3.44 mSv (median, 3.05 mSv), while that under the 0.25-mm lead apron was 0.12 mSv (median, 0.1 mSv). The coefficients of the regression line result in the equation Y = 0.036X-0.004, with Y as the dose under the lead apron and X as the dose above the lead apron. The statistical analysis of the data established a linear relation between the doses above and those under the lead apron (R(2) = 0.59). Before the special holder was introduced it was not possible to derive a relation between the doses above and those under the lead apron, as the doses were measured at varying places above and under the lead apron. There is no evidence that the effective dose can be estimated more accurately when an additional dosimeter is used. The present study revealed a threshold before doses under the lead apron were measured. Due to the threshold it can be concluded that the doses under the lead apron will not be underestimated easily when doses above the lead apron are used to calculate them. This is not the case when the doses above the lead apron are calculated for the doses under the lead apron.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus