Masayuki Zuguchi

Dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a diverse 3D X-ray imaging technique that has enabled clear visualization of the teeth and surrounding structures. The most common diagnostic purpose of dental CBCT examination in children is ectopic eruption and impacted teeth, and a small field of view (FOV) is often used. Since it is difficult for children to control their body movements, reducing the rotation angle is effective. However, no studies have examined the effects of different rotation angles on radiation doses to highly radiosensitive organs in children using small FOVs. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of small FOVs (4 × 4 cm and 6 × 6 cm) and rotation angles (360° and 180°) on doses that highly sensitize organs in children using dental CBCT. The entrance surface doses to lenses, thyroid lobes, parotid glands, and sublingual glands of a pediatric whole-body phantom were measured. By reducing the FOV from 6 × 6 cm to 4 × 4 cm, the dose to the sublingual gland could be significantly decreased. Additionally, by reducing the rotation angle from 360° to 180°, the lens dose can be decreased significantly. As the rate of dose reduction varies among organs, it is important to consider the relative positions of different organs with respect to the FOV and the trajectory of the X-ray tube.

Brachytherapy is a practical, effective procedure for the local treatment of cancer; it delivers a high radiation dose to a limited tissue volume while sparing the surrounding normal tissues. Although the clinical benefit of brachytherapy is clear, there have been very few studies on the radiation dose received by physicians during the procedure. Furthermore, no study has investigated the eye radiation dose received by physicians performing ¹⁹⁸Au grain (seed) brachytherapy, using an eye dosimeter. Recently, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended significantly reducing the occupational lens dose limit, from 150 to 20 mSv/yr (100 mSv/5 years). Therefore, it has become essential to evaluate the eye radiation doses of medical workers. We evaluated the eye radiation dose of a brachytherapy physician performing ¹⁹⁸Au permanent grain implantation for tongue cancer; this is the first study on this topic. The maximum eye dose was ~0.1 mSv/procedure, suggesting that it is unlikely to exceed the ICRP limit (20 mSv/yr) for the lens, unless many procedures are performed with inappropriate radiation protection. To reduce the dose of radiation received by ¹⁹⁸Au grain brachytherapy physicians, it is necessary to use additional lead shielding equipment when preparing the treatment needles, i.e., when loading the grains. This study provides useful information on radiation exposure of physicians conducting ¹⁹⁸Au permanent grain brachytherapy.

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses.

Mobile radiography allows for the diagnostic imaging of patients who cannot move to the X-ray examination room. Therefore, mobile X-ray equipment is useful for patients who have difficulty with movement. However, staff are exposed to scattered radiation from the patient, and they can receive potentially harmful radiation doses during radiography. We estimated occupational exposure during mobile radiography using phantom measurements. Scattered radiation distribution during mobile radiography was investigated using a radiation survey meter. The efficacy of radiation-reducing methods for mobile radiography was also evaluated. The dose decreased as the distance from the X-ray center increased. When the distance was more than 150 cm, the dose decreased to less than 1 μSv. It is extremely important for radiological technologists (RTs) to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient to reduce radiation exposure. The spatial dose at eye-lens height increases when the bed height is high, and when the RT is short in stature and abdominal imaging is performed. Maintaining sufficient distance from the patient is also particularly effective in limiting radiation exposure of the eye lens. Our results suggest that the doses of radiation received by staff during mobile radiography are not significant when appropriate radiation protection is used. To reduce exposure, it is important to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient. Therefore, RTs should bear this is mind during mobile radiography.

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafe^TM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R² = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications.

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 recent years, endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms has attracted considerable attention as a promising alternative to traditional surgery. Hybrid operating room systems (HORSs) are increasingly being used to perform endovascular procedures. The clinical benefits of endovascular treatments using HORSs are very clear, and these procedures are increasing in number. In procedures such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), wires and catheters are used to deliver and deploy the stent graft in the thoracic/abdominal aorta under fluoroscopic control, including DSA. Thus, the radiation dose to the patient is an important issue. We determined radiation dose indicators (the dose–area product (DAP) and air karma (AK) parameters) associated with endovascular treatments (EVAR and TEVAR) using a HORS. As a result, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) DAPs of TEVAR and EVAR were 323.7 ± 161.0 and 371.3 ± 186.0 Gy × cm², respectively. The mean ± SD AKs of TEVAR and EVAR were 0.92 ± 0.44 and 1.11 ± 0.54 Gy, respectively. The mean ± SD fluoroscopy times of TEVAR and EVAR were 13.4 ± 7.1 and 23.2 ± 11.7 min, respectively. Patient radiation dose results in this study of endovascular treatments using HORSs showed no deterministic radiation effects, such as skin injuries. However, radiation exposure during TEVAR and EVAR cannot be ignored. The radiation dose should be evaluated in HORSs during endovascular treatments. Reducing/optimizing the radiation dose to the patient in HORSs is important.

Radiation-related tissue injuries after medical radiation procedures, such as fluoroscopically guided intervention (FGI), have been reported in patients. Real-time monitoring of medical radiation exposure administered to patients during FGI is important to avoid such tissue injuries. In our previous study, we reported a novel (prototype) real-time radiation system for FGI. However, the prototype sensor indicated low sensitivity to radiation exposure from the side and back, although it had high-quality fundamental characteristics. Therefore, we developed a novel 4-channel sensor with modified shape and size than the previous sensor, and evaluated the basic performance (i.e., measured the energy, dose linearity, dose rate, and angular dependence) of the novel and previous sensors. Both sensors of our real-time dosimeter system demonstrated the low energy dependence, excellent dose linearity (R² = 1.0000), and good dose rate dependence (i.e., within 5% statistical difference). Besides, the sensitivity of 0° ± 180° in the horizontal and vertical directions was almost 100% sensitivity for the new sensor, which significantly improved the angular dependence. Moreover, the novel dosimeter exerted less influence on X-ray images (fluoroscopy) than other sensors because of modifying a small shape and size. Therefore, the developed dosimeter system is expected to be useful for measuring the exposure of patients to radiation doses during FGI procedures.