4.0 Article

Radiation hazards to vascular surgeon and scrub nurse in mobile fluoroscopy equipped hybrid vascular room

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 156-163

出版社

KOREAN SURGICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.4174/astr.2017.92.3.156

关键词

Radiation; Hybrid; Vascular; Fluoroscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to identify the radiation hazards to vascular surgeons and scrub nurses working in mobile fluoroscopy equipped hybrid vascular operation rooms; additionally, to estimate cumulative cancer risk due to certain exposure dosages. Methods: The study was conducted prospectively in 71 patients (53 men and 18 women) who had undergone vascular intervention at our hybrid vascular theater for 6 months. OEC 9900 fluoroscopy was used as mobile C-arm. Exposure dose (ED) was measured by attaching optically stimulated luminescence at in and outside of the radiation protectors. To measure X-ray scatter with the anthropomorphic phantom model, the dose was measured at 3 distances (20, 50, 100 cm) and 3 angles (horizontal, upward 45 degrees, downward 45 degrees) using a personal gamma radiation dosimeter, Ecotest CARD DKG-21, for 1, 3, 5, 10 minutes. Results: Lifetime attributable risk of cancer was estimated using the approach of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report VII. The 6-month ED of vascular surgeons and scrub nurses were 3.85, 1.31 mSv, respectively. The attenuation rate of lead apron, neck protector and goggle were 74.6%, 60.6%, and 70.1%, respectively. All cancer incidences among surgeons and scrub-nurses correspond to 2,355 and 795 per 100,000 persons. The 10-minute dose at 100-cm distance was 0.004 mSv at horizontal, 0.009 mSv at downward 45 degrees, 0.003 mSv at upward 45. Conclusion: Although yearly radiation hazards for vascular surgeons and scrub nurses are still within safety guidelines, protection principles can never-be-too-stringent when aiming to minimize the cumulative-harmful-effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据