-
Anaesthesia Apr 2016In many orthopaedic operating rooms, anaesthesia providers routinely wear lead aprons for protection from radiation, but some studies have questioned whether this is... (Review)
Review
In many orthopaedic operating rooms, anaesthesia providers routinely wear lead aprons for protection from radiation, but some studies have questioned whether this is needed. We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that measured the amount of radiation that anaesthetists were exposed to in the orthopaedic operating room. Multiple studies have shown that at 1.5 m from the source of radiation, anaesthetists received no radiation, or amounts so small that a person would have to be present in an unreasonable number of operations to receive cumulative doses of any significance. Radiation doses at this distance were often at the limits of the sensitivity of the measuring dosimeter. We question the need to wear lead protection for anaesthesia providers who are routinely at 1.5 m or a greater distance from standard fluoroscopy units.
Topics: Anesthesia; Humans; Occupational Exposure; Operating Rooms; Orthopedics; Protective Clothing; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Monitoring; Radiation Protection
PubMed: 26874074
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13400 -
Health Physics Jun 2022Attrition in the supplemental workforce of radiation protection technicians continues to present challenges in supporting the US nuclear power industry with contract...
Attrition in the supplemental workforce of radiation protection technicians continues to present challenges in supporting the US nuclear power industry with contract technicians during refueling outages, major projects, and decommissioning. Industry wide adoption of ANSI 3.1-2014, Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants, can help overcome these challenges by accelerating the training and development of technicians in the supplemental workforce by applying the systematic approach to training (SAT).
Topics: Industry; Nuclear Power Plants; Radiation Protection; Workforce
PubMed: 35184095
DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001547 -
RoFo : Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der... Aug 2016The determination of attenuation compared to lead for lead-free and lead-reduced protective clothing depends strongly on the different methods of measurement. The...
PURPOSE
The determination of attenuation compared to lead for lead-free and lead-reduced protective clothing depends strongly on the different methods of measurement. The standards EN 61331-1 (2002), DIN 6857-1 und IEC 61331-1 (2014) are now available for the testing of protective clothing. These standards define methods in the narrow beam and in the inverse broad beam geometry with partially different radiation qualities. In the narrow beam the scattered radiation and fluorescence are not considered due to the arrangement. Therefore, the protective effect of lead-free materials will be incorrectly estimated compared to lead material. The influence of the different methods of measurement on the lead equivalent and the required mass of radiation protection clothing was examined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The lead equivalents for material samples for commercially available protective clothing were determined. These samples were made of lead and lead-reduced and lead-free materials. For determination of the attenuation equivalents, certified lead foils with high purity and a precise thickness of 0.05 to 1.25 mm were used.
RESULTS
The measurements indicate that the lead equivalent depends on the method of measurement and the radiation quality. For X-ray tube voltages below 110 kV, lead-free or lead-reduced materials show a higher lead equivalent compared to lead material in some cases. Significant mass reductions of more than 10 % compared to lead material are only achievable with a limited range of use up to 100 kV.
CONCLUSION
The implementation of an internationally accepted measuring standard for radiation protection clothing is reasonable and necessary. If standard IEC 61331-1 (2014) can fill this role is unknown. Key points • The attenuation factor and the lead equivalent depend strongly on the method of measurement.• The used X-ray spectra are only partially comparable with the spectra of scattered radiation.• Mass reductions for protective clothing are only achievable with a limited range of use. Citation Format: • Schöpf T, Pichler T. Radiation Protection Clothing in X-Ray Diagnostics - Influence of the Different Methods of Measurement on the Lead Equivalent and the Required Mass. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 768 - 775.
Topics: Equipment Failure Analysis; Germany; Lead; Materials Testing; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Protective Clothing; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Protection; Radiometry; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; X-Rays
PubMed: 27248650
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-106651 -
Medical Physics Aug 2022Proton imaging makes use of high-energy, low-intensity proton beams that fully traverse the patient and has been suggested to reduce range uncertainty in proton therapy....
BACKGROUND
Proton imaging makes use of high-energy, low-intensity proton beams that fully traverse the patient and has been suggested to reduce range uncertainty in proton therapy. Upright patient positioning with proton imaging is being considered for a fixed beam room of a new proton therapy facility currently under construction. Considering that the yield and energy spectrum of secondary radiation from high-energy proton beams is proton beam energy dependent, an assessment of radiation shielding at the energies required for proton imaging should be performed prior to use. Furthermore, NCRP 144 recommends that pion production be considered for proton energies greater than 300 MeV, which are not typically utilized for proton therapy but may be required for proton imaging.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this work was to determine whether proton treatment and imaging with an upright patient positioning system on a fixed beamline were acceptable from a radiation shielding perspective. This is the first report on radiation shielding assessment of proton imaging applications and includes consideration of pion production at the proton beam energy of 330 MeV.
METHODS
The Geant4 Monte Carlo toolkit was used for the radiation shielding assessment. The calculations consisted of the generation of secondary particle phase-space files by simulating the passage of high-energy proton beams in two target materials, and subsequent simulation of the secondary particles in the proton therapy facility geometry. Particle fluence was converted to operational and protection radiation safety quantities with a custom python script for assessment of instantaneous and annual doses, respectively.
RESULTS
The total yields of pions from a 330-MeV proton beam were many orders of magnitude less than that of neutrons and photons. Three-dimensional maps of ambient dose rate for a 330-MeV proton beam showed doses arising from secondary neutrons and photons far exceed those arising from pion production. Incorporating representative annual workloads into the calculation demonstrated that proton imaging doses outside the shielded area were negligible compared to those arising from proton therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Pion production has a negligible impact on the radiation shielding of proton imaging at 330 MeV relative to neutron and photon production. Radiation shielding designed for proton therapy is adequate for high-energy proton imaging applications.
Topics: Humans; Monte Carlo Method; Neutrons; Proton Therapy; Protons; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Protection; Radiometry
PubMed: 35611603
DOI: 10.1002/mp.15727 -
Igaku Butsuri : Nihon Igaku Butsuri... 2022Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is a radiation therapy that uses charged particles produced by a nuclear reaction between thermal neutrons and B. A high-intensity...
Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is a radiation therapy that uses charged particles produced by a nuclear reaction between thermal neutrons and B. A high-intensity neutron source is required to perform BNCT, and it is important to understand the behavior of neutrons. Since BNCT using accelerators has been approved as a medical device, the number of treatment facilities is expected to increase in the future. This article describes the basic knowledge required to understand BNCT in clinical practice, including neutron generation and material interactions, as well as radiation protection considerations specific to BNCT.
Topics: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy; Neutrons; Radiation Protection
PubMed: 36184424
DOI: 10.11323/jjmp.42.3_143 -
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Nov 2022A key activity of MELODI is to organise annual European meetings where scientific results and future directions and strategies of relevant research are discussed. The...
A key activity of MELODI is to organise annual European meetings where scientific results and future directions and strategies of relevant research are discussed. The annual meetings, previously organised solely under the auspices of MELODI are, since 2016, jointly organised by the European platforms and referred to as European Radiation Protection Weeks (ERPW). In addition to ERPW meetings, MELODI organises and finances annual workshops dedicated to specific topics. Outputs and recommendations from the meetings are published as review articles. The 2020 workshop focussed on one of the cross cutting topics: the effects of spatial and temporal variation in dose delivery on disease risk. The current issue of REBS includes five review articles from the workshop on the effects of spatial and temporal variation in dose delivery and this editorial is a short summary of their content.
Topics: Radiation Dosage; Radiation Protection
PubMed: 36280614
DOI: 10.1007/s00411-022-01002-3 -
Journal of Radiation Research Mar 2023Catheterization for structural heart disease (SHD) requires fluoroscopic guidance, which exposes health care professionals to radiation exposure risk. Nevertheless,...
Catheterization for structural heart disease (SHD) requires fluoroscopic guidance, which exposes health care professionals to radiation exposure risk. Nevertheless, existing freestanding radiation shields for anesthesiologists are typically simple, uncomfortable rectangles. Therefore, we devised a new perforated radiation shield that allows anesthesiologists and echocardiographers to access a patient through its apertures during SHD catheterization. No report of the relevant literature has described the degree to which the anesthesiologist's radiation dose can be reduced by installing radiation shields. For estimating whole-body doses to anesthesiologists and air dose distributions in the operating room, we used a Monte Carlo system for a rapid dose-estimation system used with interventional radiology. The simulations were performed under four conditions: no radiation shield, large apertures, small apertures and without apertures. With small apertures, the doses to the lens, waist and neck surfaces were found to be comparable to those of a protective plate without an aperture, indicating that our new radiation shield copes with radiation protection and work efficiency. To simulate the air-absorbed dose distribution, results indicated that a fan-shaped area of the dose rate decrease was generated in the area behind the shield, as seen from the tube sphere. For the aperture, radiation was found to wrap around the backside of the shield, even at a height that did not match the aperture height. The data presented herein are expected to be of interest to all anesthesiologists who might be involved in SHD catheterization. The data are also expected to enhance their understanding of radiation exposure protection.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesiologists; Monte Carlo Method; Radiation Protection; Radiation Exposure; Phantoms, Imaging; Radiation Dosage
PubMed: 36702614
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrac106 -
Canadian Association of Radiologists... Aug 2013
Review
Topics: Canada; Humans; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Protection; Radiology; Societies, Medical; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 22409962
DOI: 10.1016/j.carj.2011.12.012 -
The British Journal of Radiology Sep 2021Orthopaedic surgeons have a responsibility to minimise risks of ionising radiation to patients, themselves and staff. This study aims to establish the understanding of...
OBJECTIVES
Orthopaedic surgeons have a responsibility to minimise risks of ionising radiation to patients, themselves and staff. This study aims to establish the understanding of radiation practice, legislation and risk by orthopaedic surgeons.
METHODS
A nationwide online survey of UK-based orthopaedic surgeons was conducted. Participants answered 18 multiple-choice questions assessing level of radiation safety training, basic principles/knowledge of ionising radiation, relevant legislation and operating practice.
RESULTS
A total of 406 surgeons completed the survey. 92% reported using intraoperative ionising radiation at least once per week. 38% received no formal training on radiation safety. Knowledge of basic principles of radiation and legislation was limited. There was variable knowledge when labelling an image intensifier machine and choosing its safest orientation. Poor uptake of radiation protection equipment was noted. Only 19% agreed they had adequate training in ionising radiation safety and 27% reported receiving adequate training in equipment emitting ionising radiation in the operating theatre.
CONCLUSION
Many orthopaedic surgeons in the UK do not believe they are adequately trained in radiation safety. There is a deficiency amongst practicing surgeons in basic knowledge, relevant legislation and practicalities of the use of ionising radiation in the operating room. This could potentially put patients and health-care professionals at additional risk. We recommend that a standardised national training programme on the basic principles and safety of ionising radiation is implemented for all practicing orthopaedic surgeons.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
This paper is the first UK national survey amongst orthopaedic surgeons and is one of the largest reported internationally.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Clinical Competence; Health Care Surveys; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Orthopedic Surgeons; Radiation Protection; Radiation, Ionizing; United Kingdom
PubMed: 34235964
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210736 -
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions Jan 2018
Topics: Cardiac Catheterization; Radiation Exposure; Radiation Protection
PubMed: 29102577
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.08.012