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

Japanese Journal of Radiology

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 423-429

  Funama, Yoshinori ^a   Nagasue, Nozomu ^b   Awai, Kazuo ^c   Sakamoto, Ichiro ^d   Kakei, Kiyotaka ^b   Shimamura, Masamichi ^a   Yamashita, Yasuyuki ^e   Uetani, Masataka ^d  

^a KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d NAGASAKI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^e KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Flat panel system; Fluoroscopic air kerma; Interventional radiology; Operator exposure dose; Radiographic air kerma

Indexed keywords

GLASS; TIN;

ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; DOSIMETER; DOSIMETRY; EVALUATION; HAND; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OPERATOR; ORBIT; PHOTOLUMINESCENCE GLASS DOSIMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBIS SYMPHYSIS; RADIATION DETECTOR; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGIST; THORAX; THYROID GLAND;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM DOSIMETRY; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC;

EID: 77955240258     PISSN: 18671071     EISSN: 1867108X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11604-010-0444-y     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. M. Korner C.H. Weber S. Wirth K.J. Pfeifer M.F. Reiser M. Treitl 2007 Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview Radiographics 27 675 686 10.1148/rg.273065075 17495286
2. M. Strotzer M. Volk T. Wild P. von Landenberg S. Feuerbach 2000 Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodideamorphous silicon flat-panel detector Radiology 215 512 515 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ls12quw%3D%3D 10796933
3. S. Suzuki S. Furui I. Kobayashi T. Yamauchi H. Kohtake K. Takeshita, et al. 2005 Radiation dose to patients and radiologists during transcatheter arterial embolization: comparison of a digital flat-panel system and conventional unit AJR Am J Roentgenol 185 855 859 10.2214/AJR.04.1580 16177400
4. H. Geijer K.W. Beckman T. Andersson J. Persliden 2001 Image quality vs. radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study Eur Radiol 11 1704 1709 10.1007/s003300100851 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3Mvms1Crtg%3D%3D 11511892 (Pubitemid 34669804)
5. E.T. Ilgit N. Meric D. Bor I. Oznur O. Konus S. Isik 2000 Lens of the eye: radiation dose in balloon dacryocystoplasty Radiology 217 54 57 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvmsVGjsg%3D%3D 11012423
6. B. Nikolic J.B. Spies M.J. Lundsten S. Abbara 2000 Patient radiation dose associated with uterine artery embolization Radiology 214 121 125 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7gs12htA%3D%3D 10644110
7. D.L. Miller S. Balter P.T. Noonan J.D. Georgia 2002 Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures Radiology 225 329 336 10.1148/radiol.2252011414 12409563
8. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Oxford: Pergamon, Elsevier Science; 2000.
9. B.J. McParland 1998 Entrance skin dose estimates derived from dose-area product measurements in interventional radiological procedures Br J Radiol 71 1288 1295 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3lt1Glsw%3D%3D 10319003
10. R. Juszkat M.A. Blaszak N. Majewska W. Majewski 2009 Dosearea product of patients undergoing digital subtraction angiography (DSA): abdominal aorta and lower limb examinations Health Phys 96 13 18 10.1097/01.HP.0000326445.75429.a2 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhsVCntbbN 19066482
11. Y. Hoshi T. Nomura T. Oda T. Iwasaki K. Fujita T. Ishikawa, et al. 2000 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) 41 129 137 10.1269/jrr.41.129 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD3cXmtlSmsL4%3D
12. N. Hayashi T. Sakai M. Kitagawa R. Inagaki T. Yamamoto T. Fukushima, et al. 1998 Radiation exposure to interventional radiologists during manual-injection digital subtraction angiography Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 21 240 243 10.1007/s002709900252 1:STN:280:DyaK1c3ovFOntg%3D%3D 9626442 (Pubitemid 28257688)
13. N. Hidajat P. Wust R. Felix R.J. Schroder 2006 Radiation exposure to patient and staff in hepatic chemoembolization: risk estimation of cancer and deterministic effects Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29 791 796 10.1007/s00270-005-0247-1 16802077 (Pubitemid 44128011)
14. E.L. Nickoloff Z.F. Lu A. Dutta J. So S. Balter J. Moses 2007 Influence of flat-panel fluoroscopic equipment variables on cardiac radiation doses Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30 169 176 10.1007/s00270-006-0096-6 17216374 (Pubitemid 46147103)
15. V. Tsapaki S. Kottou E. Vano T. Parviainen R. Padovani A. Dowling, et al. 2005 Correlation of patient and staff doses in interventional cardiology Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117 26 29 10.1093/rpd/nci705 1:STN:280:DC%2BD287kvFGjug%3D%3D 16461537
16. E.G. Christodoulou M.M. Goodsitt S.C. Larson K.L. Darner J. Satti H.P. Chan 2003 Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter Med Phys 30 1033 1038 10.1118/1.1573207 12852526 (Pubitemid 36735968)
17. E. Kuon M. Schmitt J.B. Dahm 2002 Significant reduction of radiation exposure to operator and staff during cardiac interventions by analysis of radiation leakage and improved lead shielding Am J Cardiol 89 44 49 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)02161-0 11779521 (Pubitemid 34066585)