Study of personal dosimetry efficiency in procedures of abdominal aortic aneurism in interventional radiology. (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bacchim Neto, Fernando A.; Alves, Allan F.F.; Rosa, Maria E.D.; de Oliveira, Marcela; de Freitas, Carlos C.M.; Moura, Regina; Pina, Diana R.
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 32(2016)Supplement 3
• Page Start: 336
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.252
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Interventional Radiology provides unquestionable benefits and replaces extremely invasive and difficult recovery procedures for the patient; however, excessive exposure to radiation can cause severe damage to patients and requires health care for professionals. The assessment of doses received under typical conditions procedures in routine sectors are essential. Thermoluminescent dosimeters are the most widely used radiation dosimeters due to its measurement accuracy and good proportionality response in the diagnostic energy range. Purpose: The objective of this paper is to evaluate the currently dosimetry technique employed in medical staff during interventional radiology procedures. Materials and methods: In each evaluated procedures, dosimeters were fixed at the following locations: a few inches below the eye lens (on top of the surgical mask), thyroid, chest, gonads, hand (bottom of the pulse) and foot, above the radiological protection vests as lead apron and thyroid shield. Equivalent doses rate profiles were estimated based on TLD readings related to the duration of each procedure. Results: The equivalent dose rate profile shows a tendency of difference between dose rate found in the chest in relation to the abdomen, hands and feet. Statistically, dose rates found in the hands differ from those found in the chest with p = 0.05. Conclusion: These results suggest that only a dosimeter placed on the chest does not describe faithfully the radiation doses in these professionals. Two dosimeters placed at the height of the abdomen of professionals, one inside the lead protections and other outside, may indicate more accurately the effective dose. Disclosure: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.