Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Layton, K.F. Articles by Sturchio, G.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Layton, K.F. Articles by Sturchio, G.M.

American Journal of Neuroradiology 27:742-743, April 2006
© 2006 American Society of Neuroradiology

Technical Note
INTERVENTIONAL

Radiation Exposure to the Primary Operator During Endovascular Surgical Neuroradiology Procedures

K.F. Layton^a, D.F. Kallmes^a, H.J. Cloft^a, B.A. Schueler^a and G.M. Sturchio^b

^a Departments of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn
^b Radiation Safety, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn

Address correspondence to Kennith F. Layton, MD, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First St S.W., Rochester, MN 55905

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Introduction Description of Technique Discussion Conclusion References

 
SUMMARY: Endovascular surgical neuroradiologists can receive a substantial amount of occupational radiation exposure. We evaluated the amount of radiation exposure that results from the practice of performing hand injections during digital subtraction angiography (DSA). The primary operator can significantly decrease the radiation dose by leaving the room for DSA procedures. However, the total radiation dose for the primary operator is relatively low and is certainly within allowable regulatory limits when extrapolated to a yearly dose.

	Introduction

TOP Abstract Introduction Description of Technique Discussion Conclusion References

 
Out of sight, out of mind can be applied to the scattered radiation present during angiography. Angiographers can receive significant occupational exposures if safeguards are not instituted to limit their risk. Endovascular surgical neuroradiology sessions are often long and can span several hours in difficult cases. The concept of limiting radiation exposure to as low as reasonably achievable mandates that physicians who use ionizing radiation in their practice limit unnecessary exposure to patients, ancillary staff, and themselves.¹ Several variables with a wide variation in use have a direct influence on operator radiation exposure. One such variable is the performance of hand injections during digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in lieu of using a power injector. Hand injection technique requires that the primary operator stay near the patient to inject the contrast, whereas the power injector procedures allow the operator to step away from the table, therefore reducing his or her exposure to scattered radiation. We attempted to measure the additional radiation exposure to a primary operator during endovascular head and neck sessions that results from standing at the table during DSA acquisitions.

	Description of Technique

TOP Abstract Introduction Description of Technique Discussion Conclusion References

 
Two collar dosimeter badges (Luxel+, Landauer, Inc, Glenwood, Ill) were worn on the top of a thyroid shield for a month by a single primary operator. A third control badge was placed in the back of the room approximately 5 m from the x-ray tube. During the sessions, 1 collar badge was worn continuously (badge 1) and the second collar badge was removed by an assistant for the DSA procedures (badge 2) and placed on a table beside the control badge (badge 3). By this means, the total radiation dose for the sessions could be measured as well as the dose attributed to the DSA portion of the examinations. Except for 3D rotational angiography, all DSA injections were performed by hand. Even during 3D rotational procedures using the power injector, the primary operator stood in the same position at the table. All imaging was performed on a biplane angiography unit (Integris Allura, Philips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands) with integrated dose area product (DAP) ionization chambers. The system was configured to use an additional 0.1 mm of copper (Cu) filtration during fluoroscopy only. A Mavig-Portegra 2 (Mavig, Munich, Germany) ceiling-mounted lead acrylic window shield was used in all sessions and positioned to block scatter radiation from the exposed patient tissue.

The primary operator was an interventional neuroradiology fellow who stood in the typical position on the patient’s right side. A common femoral artery approach was used for arterial access, and in cases requiring venous access, the common femoral vein was used. The distance between the primary operator’s collar badge and the exposed patient volume was approximately 1.5 m. Readings from the dosimeter badges were obtained for deep-dose equivalent (DDE), which applies to external whole-body exposure, and lens-dose equivalent (LDE), which applies to orbital lens exposure. The DAP for patient exposure from fluoroscopy and DSA was recorded from the angiography console in each case as well as the total fluoroscopy time per case.

During 1 month, 29 procedures were performed. The procedures were composed of a mixture of diagnostic and interventional cases of the head and neck, which are listed in Table 1, along with the average fluoroscopy time. The total radiation dose (badge 1), the fluoroscopy dose (badge 2), the DSA dose (badge 1 minus badge 2), and the percentage of the total dose attributed to DSA are given in Table 2. The control badge (badge 3) had a negligible dose (<0.01 mSv). The average patient DAP, obtained from the angiography unit was 68 Gy cm² (range, 17–173 Gy cm²), and the percentage of the total patient DAP resulting from DSA was 78% (range, 48%–96%).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1: Case mixture and average fluoroscopy time

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2: Dosimeter readings and radiation exposure

 

	Discussion

TOP Abstract Introduction Description of Technique Discussion Conclusion References

 
Operator exposure during angiography has been reported in the interventional cardiology and neuroradiology literature.²–⁸ Previous reports have documented the utility of protective devices such as pull-in lead shields and lead aprons as well as increasing operator distance from the primary beam for reducing radiation dose to angiographers.³, ⁹ In fact, these practices are now commonplace for all angiographic procedures when patient and instrument positioning allows. Practice patterns vary widely concerning the use of hand injections versus automated power injections for DSA. With the advent of minimally invasive endovascular surgical techniques, the practice of performing hand injections for DSA procedures has become more common. Because endovascular interventions are often long procedures, time-saving techniques such as hand injections have evolved as a consequence. Furthermore, some operators prefer hand injections to power injector procedures because of the immediate feedback and ability to stop the injection in cases of catheter or patient movement.³ The use of microcatheters also generally requires manual injections because volumes of <1 mL are often used in small-caliber vessels. Power injection through a microcatheter in a small distal branch is contraindicated because of the potential for vessel or microcatheter rupture.

DSA has been shown to be the primary contributor to operator radiation exposure during diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures. Previous reports have documented the percentage of total dose due to DSA as 75%–92% during interventional cardiology and radiology sessions.³, ⁴,⁷, ⁸ In fact, a single DSA procedure in some cases may expose the operator to more radiation than the fluoroscopy dose from the entire procedure.² Our results for endovascular neuroradiology sessions are compatible with these previous reports and document that DSA provides 79%–86% of the primary operator’s total radiation dose. Although we did not specifically measure the radiation dose to the primary operator’s hands, previous studies have documented increased exposure to the left hand during manual DSA injections.² Note that for our study, Cu filtration was used for the fluoroscopic portion of the procedure only. Use of Cu filtration for DSA would result in an additional dose reduction for the patient and operator during this portion of the procedure. However, we do not routinely use Cu filtration for DSA because of issues with tube overheating on the Philips unit. A small fraction of the DSA procedures and, therefore, the DSA dose in our study was necessarily performed by hand for microcatheter procedures. However most DSA procedures used a diagnostic or guiding catheter and could have been performed with a power injector. If the operator also stood back 5 m from the table (same distance as badge 3), essentially all of the dose from DSA could be eliminated.

Even though DSA contributes most to operator exposure during the session, the total radiation dose is still relatively low. In our practice, even with the use of hand injections, the total radiation dose is still within allowable yearly limits (50-mSv effective dose equivalent, 150-mSv LDE) when extrapolated over a 12-month period.¹ The projected yearly dose for the caseload experienced during this study is 11.3-mSv DDE and 13-mSv LDE. Assuming that a lead protective apron is worn, we estimate the effective dose equivalent as 2 mSv for 1 year on the basis of the guidelines set forth by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.¹⁰ Different practices might expect different results depending on their caseload, experience, fluoroscopy habits, and angiography unit dose settings. However, the fraction of the total dose from DSA would be expected to increase for more experienced operators as the amount of fluoroscopy during the procedure decreases. Furthermore, the case mixture in a given practice will also influence an operator’s total dose and the fraction attributable to DSA.

Several investigators have shown that operator exposure levels are proportional to the patient DAP, which is calculated by the angiography unit on the basis of collimator settings and exposure factors.¹¹–¹⁴ In our study, the fraction of patient DAP from DSA averaged 78%, which was very close to our badge measurements for the operator’s DSA dose. Because the DAP measurement is performed automatically on most modern angiography units, it is possible for any given operator performing hand injections to estimate the dose reduction that would occur if power injection was used instead.

	Conclusion

TOP Abstract Introduction Description of Technique Discussion Conclusion References

 
Endovascular surgical neuroradiologists who routinely perform hand injections during head and neck procedures receive >75% of their dose from DSA. Patient DAP measurements can be used to estimate a given operator’s expected DSA dose contribution to his or her total dose. Whether the dose exposure saved by standing away from the table justifies the increased procedure time is a philosophic question that individual radiologists must answer for themselves.

	Footnotes

 
Abstract presented as a talk at the second annual course and workshop for the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Radiology, Oahu, Hawaii, August 3, 2005.

	References

TOP Abstract Introduction Description of Technique Discussion Conclusion References

 

1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1993. NCRP Report No. 116

2. Hayashi N, Sakai T, Kiagawa M, et al. Radiation exposure to interventional radiologists during manual-injection digital subtraction angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1998;21:240–43[Medline]

3. Britton CA, Wholey MH. Radiation exposure of personnel during digital subtraction angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1988;11:108–10[Medline]

4. Riley RC, Birks JW, Palacios E, et al. Exposure of radiologists during special procedures. Radiology 1973;104:679–83

5. Chopp M, Portnoy HD, Schuvig R, et al. Clinical dosimetry during cerebral arteriography. Neuroradiology 1980;20:74–81

6. Tryhus M, Mettler FA, Kalsey C. The radiologist and angiographic procedures: absorbed radiation dose. Invest Radiol 1987;22:747–50[Medline]

7. Malsky SJ, Roswit B, Reid CB, et al. Radiation exposure to personnel during cardiac catheterization: a preliminary study. Radiology 1971;100:671–74[Medline]

8. Wold GJ, Scheele RV, Agarwal SK. Evaluation of physician exposure during cardiac catheterization. Radiology 1971;99:188–90[Medline]

9. Judkins MP. Guidelines for radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1984;10:87–92[Medline]

10. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Use of personal monitors to estimate effective dose equivalent to workers for external exposure to low-LET radiation. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1995. NCRP Report No. 122

11. Marshall NW, Faulkner K. The dependence of the scattered radiation dose to personnel on technique factors in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 1996;23:1271–76[Medline]

12. Williams JR. Interdependence of staff and patient doses in interventional radiology. Br J Radiol 1997;70:498–503[Abstract]

13. Servomaa A, Karppinen J. The dose-area product and assessment of the occupational dose in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;96:235–36[Abstract]

14. Kuon E, Schmitt M, Dahm JB. Significant reduction of radiation exposure to operator and staff during cardiac interventions by analysis of radiation leakage and improved lead shielding. Am J Cardiol 2002;89:44–49[Medline]

Received September 12, 2005; accepted after revision November 22, 2005.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Mesbahi, P. Mehnati, A. Keshtkar, and N. Aslanabadi Comparison of radiation dose to patient and staff for two interventional cardiology units: a phantom study Radiat Prot Dosimetry, September 1, 2008; 131(3): 399 - 403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Layton, K.F. Articles by Sturchio, G.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Layton, K.F. Articles by Sturchio, G.M.