Comparison of radiation-shielding curtains for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography staff.

Occupational radiation exposure to the eye lens of medical staff during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) should be kept low so as not to exceed annual dose limits. Dose should be low to avoid tissue reactions and minimizing stochastic effects. It is known that the head and neck of the staff are exposed to more scattered radiation in an over-couch tube system than in a C-arm system (under-couch tube). However, this is only true when radiation-shielding curtains are not used. This study aimed to compare the protection radiation to the occupationally exposed worker between a lead curtain mounted on a C-arm system and an ERCP-specific lead curtain mounted on an over-couch tube system. A phantom study simulating a typical setting for ERCP procedures was conducted, and the scattered radiation dose at four staff positions were measured. It was found that scattered radiation doses were higher in the C-arm with a lead curtain than in the over-couch tube with an ERCP-specific lead curtain at all positions measured in this study. It was concluded that the over-couch tube system with an ERCP-specific lead curtain would reduce the staff eye dose by less than one-third compared to the C-arm system with a lead curtain. For the C-arm system, it is necessary to consider more effective radiation protection measures for the upper body of the staff, such as a ceiling-suspended lead screen or another novel shielding that do not interfere with procedures.

Effect of backscatter radiation on the occupational eye-lens dose.

We quantified the level of backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads using a phantom. We also evaluated the shielding rate of the protective eyewear and optimal placement of the eye-dedicated dosimeter (skin surface or behind the Pb-eyewear). We performed diagnostic X-rays of two head phantoms: Styrofoam (negligible backscatter radiation) and anthropomorphic (included backscatter radiation). Radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters were used to measure the eye-lens dose, with or without 0.07-mm Pb-equivalent protective eyewear. We used tube voltages of 50, 65 and 80 kV because the scattered radiation has a lower mean energy than the primary X-ray beam. The backscatter radiation accounted for 17.3-22.3% of the eye-lens dose, with the percentage increasing with increasing tube voltage. Furthermore, the shielding rate of the protective eyewear was overestimated, and the eye-lens dose was underestimated when the eye-dedicated dosimeter was placed behind the protective eyewear. We quantified the backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads. To account for the effect of backscatter radiation, an anthropomorphic, rather than Styrofoam, phantom should be used. Close contact of the dosimeter with the skin surface is essential for accurate evaluation of backscatter radiation from physician's own heads. To assess the eye-lens dose accurately, the dosimeter should be placed near the eye. If the dosimeter is placed behind the lens of the protective eyewear, we recommend using a backscatter radiation calibration factor of 1.2-1.3.

Comparison of shielding effects of over-glasses-type and regular eyewear in terms of occupational eye dose reduction.

Given the new recommendations for occupational eye lens doses, various lead glasses have been used to reduce irradiation of interventional radiologists. However, the protection afforded by lead glasses over prescription glasses (thus over-glasses-type eyewear) has not been considered in detail. We used a phantom to compare the protective effects of such eyewear and regular eyewear of 0.07 mm lead-equivalent thickness. The shielding rates behind the eyewear and on the surface of the left eye of an anthropomorphic phantom were calculated. The left eye of the phantom was irradiated at various angles and the shielding effects were evaluated. We measured the radiation dose to the left side of the phantom using RPLDs attached to the left eye and to the surface/back of the left eyewear. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded good protection against x-rays from the left and below; the average shielding rates on the surface of the left eye ranged from 0.70-0.72. In clinical settings, scattered radiation is incident on physicians' eyes from the left and below, and through any gap in lead glasses. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded better protection than regular eyewear of the same lead-equivalent thickness at the irradiation angles of concern in clinical settings. Although clinical evaluation is needed, we suggest over-glasses-type Pb eyewear even for physicians who do not wear prescription glasses.

Evaluation of radiation dose and image quality for dental cone-beam computed tomography in pediatric patients.

Children are sensitive to radiation; therefore, it is necessary to reduce radiation dose as much as possible in pediatric patients. In addition, it is crucial to investigate the optimal imaging conditions as they considerably affect the radiation dose. In this study, we investigated the effect of different imaging conditions on image quality and optimized the imaging conditions for dental cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations to diagnose ectopic eruptions and impacted teeth in children. To achieve our aims, we evaluated radiation doses and subjective and objective image quality. The CBCT scans were performed using 3D Accuitomo F17. All combinations of a tube voltage (90 kV), tube currents (1, 2, 3 mA), fields of view (FOVs) (4 × 4, 6 × 6 cm), and rotation angles (360°, 180°) were used. Dose-area product values were measured. SedentexCT IQ cylindrical phantom was used to physically evaluate the image quality. We used the modulation transfer function as an index of resolution, the noise power spectrum as an index of noise characteristics, and the system performance function as an overall evaluation index of the image. Five dentists visually evaluated the images from the head-neck phantom. The results showed that the image quality tended to worsen, and scores for visual evaluation decreased as tube currents, FOVs and rotation angles decreased. In particular, image noise negatively affected the delineation of the periodontal ligament space. The optimal imaging conditions were 90 kV, 2 mA, 4 × 4 cm FOV and 180° rotation. These results suggest that CBCT radiation doses can be significantly reduced by optimizing the imaging conditions.

Eye Lens Radiation Dose to Nurses during Cardiac Interventional Radiology: An Initial Study.

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.

Spatial Scattering Radiation to the Radiological Technologist during Medical Mobile Radiography.

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.

Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study.

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.

Hybrid Operating Room System for the Treatment of Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Evaluation of the Radiation Dose Received by Patients.

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 x 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 eye dose to medical staff during respiratory endoscopy under X-ray fluoroscopy.

Although the clinical value of fluoroscopically guided respiratory endoscopy (bronchoscopy) is clear, there have been very few studies on the radiation dose received by staff during fluoroscopically guided bronchoscopy. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is suggesting reducing the occupational lens dose limit markedly from 150 to 20 mSv/year, averaged over defined periods of five years. The purpose of this study was to clarify the current occupational eye dose of bronchoscopy staff conducting fluoroscopically guided procedures. We measured the occupational eye doses (3-mm-dose equivalent, Hp(3)) of bronchoscopy staff (physicians and nurses) over a 6-month period. The eye doses of eight physicians and three nurses were recorded using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS. We also estimated eye doses using personal dosimeters worn at the neck. The mean ± SD radiation eye doses (DOSIRIS) to physicians and nurses were 7.68 ± 5.27 and 2.41 ± 1.94 mSv/6 months, respectively. The new lens dose limit, 20 mSv/year, may be exceeded among bronchoscopy staff, especially physicians. The eye dose of bronchoscopy staff (both physicians and nurses) was underestimated when measured using a neck dosimeter. Hence, the occupational eye dose of bronchoscopy staff should be monitored. To reduce the occupational eye dose, we recommend that staff performing fluoroscopically guided bronchoscopy wear Pb glasses. correct evaluation of the lens dose [Hp(3)] using an eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS is necessary for bronchoscopy staff.

An initial investigation of a wireless patient radiation dosimeter for use in interventional radiology.

Radiation exposure during interventional radiology (IR) procedures is a critical issue. We have developed a wireless real-time dosimeter for IR patients that use nontoxic phosphor (four sensors). We evaluated the basic performance parameters (such as dose linearity, batch uniformity, reproducibility, and wireless-communication conditions) of the developed system using an IR X-ray system. Further, we investigated the influence of noise from other medical equipment on our wireless real-time dosimeter in the IR X-ray room. Overall, our wireless system exhibited excellent performance in terms of uniformity, reproducibility, and linearity; moreover, the wireless communication performance was better. The developed system enabled real-time visualization of patient radiation dose, without noise contamination from other medical equipment. In addition, the wireless system can be easily installed in a location where the PC screen (display) can be readily viewed by the IR physician. Hence, we developed a wireless system that can display the patient radiation dose data in real time; the system performed satisfactorily upon application in radiation dosimetry. Therefore, our wireless system will facilitate the real-time monitoring/management of patient radiation dose during IR.

Development of Novel Real-Time Radiation Systems Using 4-Channel Sensors.

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.

Effectiveness of a novel real-time dosimeter in interventional radiology: a comparison of new and old radiation sensors.

Radiation dose management is important in interventional radiology (IR) procedures, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, to prevent radiation-induced injuries. Therefore, radiation dose should be monitored in real time during IR. This study evaluated the fundamental characteristics of a novel real-time skin dosimeter (RTSD) developed at our institution. In addition, we compared the performance of our new and old radiation sensors and that of a skin dose monitor (SDM), with ion chamber reference values. We evaluated the fundamental characteristics (e.g., energy dependence, dose dependence, and angular dependence) of the RTSD developed by us in the diagnostic X-ray energy range. The performance of our RTSD was similar to that of the SDM. In particular, the new radiation sensor of our RTSD demonstrated better dose rate dependence compared to the old sensor. In addition, the new sensor had the advantage of being small in size and thus minimally affecting the X-ray images compared to the old sensor. Therefore, the developed skin dosimeter and radiation sensor may be useful in real-time measurement of patients' exposure to and multi-channel monitoring of radiation in IR procedures. The new dosimeter system can be recommended for visualization and management of the radiation dose to which the patients' skin is exposed.

Real-time patient radiation dosimeter for use in interventional radiology.

There is currently no effective real-time patient dosimeter available for use in interventional radiology (IR). We conducted a feasibility study in a clinical setting to investigate the use of the new dosimeter using photoluminescence sensors during procedures. Reference dosimeters were set at almost the same position of the prototype dosimeter sensors. We found excellent correlations between the reference measurements and those of the prototype dosimeter (r2=0.950). The sensor of the new dosimeter does not interfere with the IR procedure. The new dosimeter will be an effective tool for the real-time measurement of patient skin doses during IR.

A cross-sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X-ray equipment used in IVR.

There are case reports of injuries caused by the radiation from interventional radiology (IVR) X-ray systems. Therefore, the management of radiation doses in IVR is important. However, no detailed report has evaluated image quality for a large number of IVR X-ray systems. As a result, it is unclear whether the image quality of the X-ray equipment currently used in IVR procedures is optimal. We compared the entrance surface doses and image quality of multiple IVR X-ray systems. This study was conducted in 2014 at 13 medical facilities using 18 IVR X-ray systems. We evaluated image quality and simultaneously measured the radiation dose. Entrance surface doses for fluoroscopy (duration, 1 min) and cineradiography (duration, 10 s) are measured using a 20-cm-thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The image quality (such as spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability) of both fluoroscopy and cineradiography was evaluated using a QC phantom. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface dose using the 20-cm-thick acrylic plate was 13.9 (range 2.1-28.2) mGy/min. For cineradiography, the average entrance surface dose was 24.6 (range 5.1-49.3) mGy/10 s. We found positive correlations between radiation doses and image quality scores, in general, especially for fluoroscopy. The differences in surface dose among the 18 IVR X-ray systems were high (max/min, 9.7-fold for cineradiography; 13.4-fold for fluoroscopy). The differences in image quality scores (spatial resolution, low-contrast detectability, and dynamic range) were also very large. In general, there tended to be a correlation between radiation dose and image quality. Periodical measurements of the radiation dose and image quality of the X-ray equipment used for cineradiography and fluoroscopy in IVR are necessary. The need to minimize patient exposure requires that the dose be reduced to the minimum level that will generate an image with an acceptable degree of noise.

Radiation dose of cardiac IVR x-ray systems: a comparison of present and past.

OBJECTIVE: Although many patients benefit greatly from fluoroscopically guided intervention (IVR) procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one of the major disadvantages associated with these procedures, such as cardiac IVR, is the increased patient radiation dose. This study compared the entrance surface doses of x-ray equipment for cardiac IVR at the same seven cardiac catheterization laboratories between today and the past to determine the radiation doses of current cardiac IVR x-ray systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was conducted in 2001, 2007, and 2014 at the same seven cardiac catheterization laboratories in and around Sendai City, Japan. The entrance surface doses with cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared in 2001 (11 x-ray systems), 2007, and 2014 (12 x-ray systems) using a 20-cm-thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The x-ray conditions used in the measurements, including the image receptor field magnification mode and the recording speed for cineangiography and fluoroscopy, were those-normally used in the facilities performing PCI. Although presently, the entrance doses of x-ray equipment used for cardiac IVR tend to be lower than previously (fluoroscopy dose in 2001, 19.3 +/- 6.3 mGy/min; in 2014, 13.2 +/- 6.5 mGy/min), some equipment has a high radiation dose. In addition, the dose differences of the x-ray systems in 2014 were greater than those in the past (fluoroscopy dose in 2001, 3.4-fold; in 2014, 10.5-fold). CONCLUSIONS: In IVR procedures, managing the radiation dose of cardiac IVR x-ray systems is a very important issue. Periodical measurement of the radiation dose of the x-ray equipment used for both cineangiography and fluoroscopy for cardiac IVR is necessary.

Novel Dosimeter Using a Nontoxic Phosphor for Real-Time Monitoring of Patient Radiation Dose in Interventional Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: To our knowledge, no feasible method exists for real-time measurement of the radiation dose given to the patient during interventional radiology (IR) procedures. Therefore, we produced a prototype of a real-time dosimeter for patients undergoing IR that uses a nontoxic phosphor. The basic characteristics of the real-time dosimeter prototype are comparable to those of the previously used skin dose monitor, with the exception that our prototype has the distinct advantage of including multichannel sensors. CONCLUSION: The novel real-time dosimeter system is expected to be useful for measuring patient exposure to the radiation dose during IR procedures.

Occupational dose in interventional radiology procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Interventional radiology tends to involve long procedures (i.e., long fluoroscopic times). Therefore, radiation protection for interventional radiology staff is an important issue. This study describes the occupational radiation dose for interventional radiology staff, especially nurses, to clarify the present annual dose level for interventional radiology nurses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the annual occupational dose (effective dose and dose equivalent) among interventional radiology staff in a hospital where 6606 catheterization procedures are performed annually. The annual occupational doses of 18 physicians, seven nurses, and eight radiologic technologists were recorded using two monitoring badges, one worn over and one under their lead aprons. RESULTS: The annual mean ± SD effective dose (range) to the physicians, nurses, and radiologic technologists using two badges was 3.00 ± 1.50 (0.84-6.17), 1.34 ± 0.55 (0.70-2.20), and 0.60 ± 0.48 (0.02-1.43) mSv/y, respectively. Similarly, the annual mean ± SD dose equivalent range was 19.84 ± 12.45 (7.0-48.5), 4.73 ± 0.72 (3.9-6.2), and 1.30 ± 1.00 (0.2-2.7) mSv/y, respectively. The mean ± SD effective dose for the physicians was 1.02 ± 0.74 and 3.00 ± 1.50 mSv/y for the one- and two-badge methods, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean ± SD effective dose for the nurses (p = 0.186) and radiologic technologists (p = 0.726) tended to be lower using the one-badge method. CONCLUSION: The annual occupational dose for interventional radiology staff was in the order physicians > nurses > radiologic technologists. The occupational dose determined using one badge under the apron was far lower than the dose obtained with two badges in both physicians and nonphysicians. To evaluate the occupational dose correctly, we recommend use of two monitoring badges to evaluate interventional radiology nurses as well as physicians.

Physician-received scatter radiation with angiography systems used for interventional radiology: comparison among many X-ray systems.

Radiation protection for interventional radiology (IR) physicians is very important. Current IR X-ray systems tend to use flat-panel detectors (FPDs) rather than image intensifiers (IIs). The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in physician-received scatter radiation (PRSR) between FPD systems and II systems. This study examined 20 X-ray systems in 15 cardiac catheterisation laboratories (11 used a FPD and 9 used an II). The PRSR with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared among the 20 X-ray systems using a phantom and a solid-state-detector electronic pocket dosemeter. The maximum PRSR exceeded the minimum PRSR by ~12-fold for cineangiography and ~9-fold for fluoroscopy. For both fluoroscopy and digital cineangiography, the PRSR had a statistically significant positive correlation with the entrance surface dose (fluoroscopy, r = 0.87; cineangiography, r = 0.86). There was no statistically significant difference between the average PRSR of FPDs and IIs during either digital cineangiography or fluoroscopy. There is a wide range of PRSR among the radiography systems evaluated. The PRSR correlated well with the entrance surface dose of the phantom in 20 X-ray units used for IR. Hence, decreasing the dose to the patient will also decrease the dose to staff.

Clarifying and visualizing sources of staff-received scattered radiation in interventional procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Interventional radiology tends to involve long procedures (i.e., long fluoroscopic times). Therefore, radiation protection for interventional radiology physicians and staff is an important issue. We examine and identify sources of staff-received scattered radiation in an interventional radiology system using a pinhole camera method. CONCLUSION: Physicians and staff are exposed primarily to two sources of scattered radiation: radiation scattered from the patient and radiation from the cover of the x-ray beam collimating device. Those who stand close to the patient and the x-ray beam collimating device, where scattered radiation is higher, have higher radiation doses. Thus, radiation protection during interventional radiology procedures is an important problem.