Original paperAddressing the efficiency of X-ray protective eyewear: Proposal for the introduction of a new comprehensive parameter, the Eye Protection Effectiveness (EPE)
Introduction
The medical research in the last two decades brought to new awareness and knowledge regarding the effect of ionizing radiation on the eye lens, one of the most radiosensitive human tissue. As a consequence the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended, on 2011, an equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv/year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
Among all the workers exposed to ionizing radiation, the medical staff involved in cardio -vascular and interventional radiology is one of the highest-risk category [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Moreover interventional procedures guided by X-ray imaging have experienced an important increase in the last years. The ORAMED project ([11], [12]), highlighted the need to monitor routinely the eye lens of the staff involved in radiological interventional procedures. The practical and theoretical issues related to the dose monitoring and to the efficacy of the protection tools are not trivial, because several factors contribute to the overall eye lens dose. The radiation reaching the eyes arises from the radiation field scattered by the patient, with a small contribution given by the radiation diffused within the head of the operators [13]. The eye lens absorbed dose is strongly dependent on the operator distance from the scattering source, orientation of the operator head with respect to the patient, position of the monitor, angle projection of the tube, and exposure parameters, such as KAP, radiation quality and tube voltage [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. The effectiveness of the radioprotection equipment available on the market is under debate in the scientific and medical community, because many studies have shown that the nominal lead equivalent thickness is not the best, or at least not the unique, quantity useful to address protection efficiency. The lack of consideration of geometrical parameters can lead to significant prospective underestimation of lens dose, up to one order of magnitude when the eye lens dose is estimated by means of a dosimeter located directly behind the protective lenses ([11], [20]) since in this case the dosimeter is unable to measure the scattered radiation incoming from below the protective eyewear. The international technical standard concerning the classification and the minimum requirements of protection equipment omits many fundamental aspects [21], [22]: for example, it is unclear whether the shielding materials should be incorporated in the glasses frame or not and what should be the optimum shape in order to guarantee sufficient eye lens coverage; additionally the need of lateral protection, other than front lead lens, is not taken under consideration.
Many works have been published about the effectiveness of the protection equipment for the eyes (lead acrylic visors, lead goggles, ceiling suspended lead screen), which state the influence of geometrical factors, such as shape and fit to the operator morphology, on the overall protection efficacy [14], [15], [16], [23], [24], [25]. In 2009 Miller et.al [13] published a guideline on radiation protection during fluoroscopically guided procedures, emphasizing the benefit of large lenses and side shields. Nevertheless, still a variety of lead glasses and visor models are present on the market, even though their characterization in terms of protection efficiency is often poor and contradictory. The technical parameter most used in literature to address the protection efficiency is the Dose Reduction Factor (DRF), defined aswhere and are the dose reaching the eye lens in presence and absence of the protection tool, respectively. Many authors calculated DRFs for several goggles models and for different projection angles and operators positions, [26], [27], [28], [20], [29]. However, since the DRF is dependent on the geometric conditions of exposure, these methods seem not applicable to all clinical situations and glasses shapes, and a generalized approach to the problem is still far from being achieved.
In this context, our work tries to bring clarity about the variables that affect the efficiency of different kind of X-ray eye-protection tools. To this purpose we developed a mathematical model, that includes geometrical factors and lead-equivalent thickness, which was verified experimentally in angio-room for several different eyewear by irradiating an anthropomorphic ATOM Phantom (CIRS) equipped with thermoluminescent dosimeters. The obtained results encouraged us to propone the introduction of a new comprehensive parameter, the Eye Protection Effectiveness (EPE), that, for any defined clinical irradiation condition and glass shielding capabilities and shape, defines its overall effective X-ray protection.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
In this work we investigate the protective efficiency of three different models of glasses and a visor. Pictures of the eyewears studied are presented in Fig. 1.
For the sake of simplicity and for avoiding any reference to the manufacturers e name the eyewear as “Standard model”, “Vintage model” and “Sport model”, these names closely referring to their shape. The standard and the sport model have attenuating materials both in the front and on the side, with nominal Pb equivalent thicknesses of
Verification of equivalent lead thickness
Initial measurements were carried out in order to verify the correspondence of the nominal lead equivalent thickness to the actual one. To this purpose we collected radiographic images of all the protective tools in the presence, within the same image, of certified lead sheets (“Goodfellow”, 99.9% purity) of different thicknesses in order to make an actual comparison. The geometry of the exposures is shown in Fig. 5a,b,c. By proper superposition of the lead sheets we were able to obtain several
Conclusions
After verification of the nominal equivalent thickness of various protective eyewear by comparison with the attenuation of lead certified sheets of different thickness, we performed dosimetry measurements of the eye lens protection efficacy of the same eyewear using an ATOM phantom in standard reproducible clinical geometry. Our results confirm that the Dose Reduction Factor (DRF) is strongly dependent on the shape of the eyewear and that the efficacy of eye protective gears in clinic
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the technicians of the diagnostic imaging department of Careggi hospital for providing the technical facilities used in this work.
References (30)
- International Commission On Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP PUBLICATION 60: 1990 Recommendations of the...
- National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. NCRP...
- et al.
Radiation dose and cataract surgery incidence in atomic bomb survivors, 1986–2005
Radiol
(2012) - et al.
A reanalysis of atomic-bomb cataract data, 2000–2002: a threshold analysis
Health Phys
(2006) - International Commission On Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP PUBLICATION 118: Icrp statement on tissue reactions...
- United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionizing...
- et al.
Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimized interventional radiology laboratories
Br J Radiol
(1998) - Radiological Society of North America founded in 1915 (RSNA). Interventional radiology carries occupational risk for...
- et al.
Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among us radiologic technologists
Am J Epidemiol
(2008) - et al.
Data and methods to assess occupational exposure to personnel involved in cardiac catheterization procedures
Phys Med
(2016)
Measurements of eye lens doses in interventional radiology and cardiology: final results of the oramed project
Radiat Meas
Staff eye lens and extremity exposure in interventional cardiology: results of the oramed project
Radiat Meas
Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of Europe and the society of interventional radiology
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol
Leaded eyeglasses substantially reduce radiation exposure of the surgeon’s eyes during acquisition of typical eluoroscopic views of the hip and pelvis
J Bone Joint Surg Am
The relationship between tv position and the effectiveness and comfort of protective spectacles in fluoroscopic procedures
Br J Radiol
Cited by (5)
Surgeon eye lens dose monitoring in interventional neuroradiology, cardiovascular and radiology procedures
2022, Physica MedicaCitation Excerpt :Procedure protocol optimisation and proper use of ceiling suspended screens or protective eyewear are necessary topics in the radiation protection training of surgical teams. After this study, FEVAR procedures have been optimized with respect to the acquisition protocol and the use of ceiling suspended shield, that could provide a dose reduction factor of about 0.9 for scattered radiation [25]. CT-guided biopsy is a diagnostic procedure with very few studies on eye lens dose.
Monte Carlo evaluation of occupational exposure during uterine artery embolization
2021, Physica MedicaCitation Excerpt :According to the ICRP 118 (2012) [28], the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) — lead aprons, thyroid protector, lead eyewear, and brain protector — and of collective protective equipment (CPE) such as curtain, generally made of lead, is necessary to protect the professionals. Some studies demonstrate the efficiency of radiation attenuation when the use of PPE and CPE are used, which provide a reduction in the doses received by the staff, according to the procedure [29,30]. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of different PPE and procedure parameters on the radiation exposure of both OEI and patients.
What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?
2022, Radiological Physics and Technology