TY - JOUR
T1 - Physician-received scatter radiation with angiography systems used for interventional radiology
T2 - Comparison among many x-ray systems
AU - Chida, Koichi
AU - Morishima, Yoshiaki
AU - Inaba, Youhei
AU - Taura, Masaaki
AU - Ebata, Ayako
AU - Takeda, Ken
AU - Shimura, Hirotaka
AU - Zuguchi, Masayuki
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (22611001) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
PY - 2012/5
Y1 - 2012/5
N2 - Radiation protection for interventional radiology (IR) physicians is very important. Current IR X-ray systems tend to use flat-panel detectors (FPDs) rather than image intensifiers (IIs). The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in physician-received scatter radiation (PRSR) between FPD systems and II systems. This study examined 20 X-ray systems in 15 cardiac catheterisation laboratories (11 used a FPD and 9 used an II). The PRSR with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared among the 20 X-ray systems using a phantom and a solid-state-detector electronic pocket dosemeter. The maximum PRSR exceeded the minimum PRSR by ~12-fold for cineangiography and ~9-fold for fluoroscopy. For both fluoroscopy and digital cineangiography, the PRSR had a statistically significant positive correlation with the entrance surface dose (fluoroscopy, r = 0.87; cineangiography, r = 0.86). There was no statistically significant difference between the average PRSR of FPDs and IIs during either digital cineangiography or fluoroscopy. There is a wide range of PRSR among the radiography systems evaluated. The PRSR correlated well with the entrance surface dose of the phantom in 20 X-ray units used for IR. Hence, decreasing the dose to the patient will also decrease the dose to staff.
AB - Radiation protection for interventional radiology (IR) physicians is very important. Current IR X-ray systems tend to use flat-panel detectors (FPDs) rather than image intensifiers (IIs). The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in physician-received scatter radiation (PRSR) between FPD systems and II systems. This study examined 20 X-ray systems in 15 cardiac catheterisation laboratories (11 used a FPD and 9 used an II). The PRSR with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared among the 20 X-ray systems using a phantom and a solid-state-detector electronic pocket dosemeter. The maximum PRSR exceeded the minimum PRSR by ~12-fold for cineangiography and ~9-fold for fluoroscopy. For both fluoroscopy and digital cineangiography, the PRSR had a statistically significant positive correlation with the entrance surface dose (fluoroscopy, r = 0.87; cineangiography, r = 0.86). There was no statistically significant difference between the average PRSR of FPDs and IIs during either digital cineangiography or fluoroscopy. There is a wide range of PRSR among the radiography systems evaluated. The PRSR correlated well with the entrance surface dose of the phantom in 20 X-ray units used for IR. Hence, decreasing the dose to the patient will also decrease the dose to staff.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861539760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861539760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/rpd/ncr312
DO - 10.1093/rpd/ncr312
M3 - Article
C2 - 22117021
AN - SCOPUS:84861539760
SN - 0144-8420
VL - 149
SP - 410
EP - 416
JO - Radiation Protection Dosimetry
JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry
IS - 4
M1 - ncr312
ER -
