Replace the Linear No-threshold Model with a Risk-informed Targeted Approach to Radiation Protection.

ABSTRACT: The linear no-threshold (LNT) model may be useful as a simple basis for developing radiation protection regulations and standards, but it bears little resemblance to scientific reality and is probably overly conservative at low doses and low dose rates. This paper is an appeal for a broader view of radiation protection that involves more than just optimization of radiation dose. It is suggested that the LNT model should be replaced with a risk-informed, targeted approach to limitation of overall risks, which include radiation and other types of risks and accidents/incidents. The focus should be on protection of the individual. Limitation of overall risk does not necessarily always equate to minimization of individual or collective doses, but in some cases it might. Instead, risk assessment (hazards analysis) should be performed for each facility/and or specific job or operation (straightforward for specialized work such as radiography), and this should guide how limited resources are used to protect workers and the public. A graded approach could be used to prioritize the most significant risks and identify exposure scenarios that are unlikely or non-existent. The dose limits would then represent an acceptable level of risk, below which no further reduction in dose would be needed. Less resources should be spent on ALARA and tracking small individual and collective doses. Present dose limits are thought to be conservative and should suffice in general. Two exceptions are possibly the need for a lower (lifetime) dose limit for lens of the eye for astronauts and raising the public limit to 5 mSv y -1 from 1 mSv y -1 . This would harmonize the public limit with the current limit for the embryo fetus of the declared pregnant worker. Eight case studies are presented that emphasize how diverse and complex radiation risks can be, and in some cases, chemical and industrial risks outweigh radiation risks. More focus is needed on prevention of accidents and incidents involving a variety of types of risks. A targeted approach is needed, and commitments should be complied with until they are changed or exemptions are granted. No criticism of regulators or nuclear industry personnel is intended here. Protection of workers and the public is everyone's goal. The question is how best to accomplish that.

Science-informed Policy Making for Protecting People and the Environment from Radiation.

ABSTRACT: The process to arrive at the radiation protection practices of today to protect workers, patients, and the public, including sensitive populations, has been a long and deliberative one. This paper presents an overview of the US Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA) responsibility in protecting human health and the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation. The origins of this responsibility can be traced back to early efforts, a century ago, to protect workers from x rays and radium. The system of radiation protection we employ today is robust and informed by the latest scientific consensus. It has helped reduce or eliminate unnecessary exposures to workers, patients, and the public while enabling the safe and beneficial uses of radiation and radioactive material in diverse areas such as energy, medicine, research, and space exploration. Periodic reviews and analyses of research on health effects of radiation by scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the International Commission on Radiological Protection continue to inform radiation protection practices while new scientific information is gathered. As a public health agency, US EPA is keenly interested in research findings that can better elucidate the effects of exposure to low doses and low dose rates of radiation as applicable to protection of diverse populations from various sources of exposure. Professional organizations such as the Health Physics Society can provide radiation protection practitioners with continuing education programs on the state of the science and describe the key underpinnings of the system of radiological protection. Such efforts will help equip and prepare radiation protection professionals to more effectively communicate radiation health information with their stakeholders.

A Revised System of Radiological Protection Is Needed.

ABSTRACT: The system of radiological protection has been based on linear no-threshold theory and related dose-response models for health detriment (in part related to cancer induction) by ionizing radiation exposure for almost 70 y. The indicated system unintentionally promotes radiation phobia, which has harmed many in relationship to the Fukushima nuclear accident evacuations and led to some abortions following the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Linear no-threshold model users (mainly epidemiologists) imply that they can reliably assess the cancer excess relative risk (likely none) associated with tens or hundreds of nanogray (nGy) radiation doses to an organ (e.g., bone marrow); for 1,000 nGy, the excess relative risk is 1,000 times larger than that for 1 nGy. They are currently permitted this unscientific view (ignoring evolution-related natural defenses) because of the misinforming procedures used in data analyses of which many radiation experts are not aware. One such procedure is the intentional and unscientific vanishing of the excess relative risk uncertainty as radiation dose decreases toward assigned dose zero (for natural background radiation exposure). The main focus of this forum article is on correcting the serious error of discarding risk uncertainty and the impact of the correction. The result is that the last defense of the current system of radiological protection relying on linear no-threshold theory (i.e., epidemiologic studies implied findings of harm from very low doses) goes away. A revised system is therefore needed.

Use of the flat panel detector fluoroscope reduces radiation exposure during periacetabular osteotomy.

The Periacetabular Osteotomy is a technically demanding procedure that requires precise intraoperative evaluation of pelvic anatomy. Fluoroscopic images pose a radiation risk to operating room staff, scrubbed personnel, and the patient. Most commonly, a Standard Fluoroscope with an Image Intensifier is used. Our institution recently implemented the novel Fluoroscope with a Flat Panel Detector. The purpose of this study was to compare radiation dosage and accuracy between the two fluoroscopes. A retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients who underwent Periacetabular Osteotomy for symptomatic hip dysplasia was completed. The total radiation exposure dose (mGy) was recorded and compared for each case from the standard fluoroscope (n = 27) and the flat panel detector (n = 26) cohorts. Lateral center edge angle was measured and compared intraoperatively and at the six-week postoperative visit. A total of 53 patients (96% female) with a mean age and BMI of 17.84 (± 6.84) years and 22.66 (± 4.49) kg/m2 (standard fluoroscope) and 18.23 (± 4.21) years and 21.99 (± 4.00) kg/m2 (flat panel detector) were included. The standard fluoroscope averaged total radiation exposure to be 410.61(± 193.02) mGy, while the flat panel detector averaged 91.12 (± 49.64) mGy (p < 0.0001). The average difference (bias) between intraoperative and 6-week postoperative lateral center edge angle measurement was 0.36° (limits of agreement: - 3.19 to 2.47°) for the standard fluoroscope and 0.27° (limits of agreement: - 2.05 to 2.59°) for the flat panel detector cohort. Use of fluoroscopy with flat panel detector technology decreased the total radiation dose exposure intraoperatively and produced an equivalent assessment of intraoperative lateral center edge angle. Decreasing radiation exposure to young patients is imperative to reduce the risk of future comorbidities.

Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the radiation exposure for the urology staff during endourology, our aim was to evaluate the trends of radiation protection in the operation room by endourologists from European centers and to estimate their annual radiation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study involving experienced endourologists from different European centers to evaluate whether the protection and threshold doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) were being followed. A 36-question survey was completed on the use of fluoroscopy and radiation protection. Annual prospective data from chest, extremities, and eye dosimeters were collected during a 4-year period (2017-2020). RESULTS: Ten endourologists participated. Most surgeons use lead aprons and thyroid shield (9/10 and 10/10), while leaded gloves and caps are rarely used (2/10 both). Six out of ten surgeons wear leaded glasses. There is widespread use of personal chest dosimeters under the apron (9/10), and only 5/10 use a wrist or ring dosimeter and 4 use an eye dosimeter. Two endourologists use the ALARA protocol. The use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL puncture was reported by 8 surgeons. The mean number of PCNL and URS per year was 30.9 (SD 19.9) and 147 (SD 151.9). The mean chest radiation was 1.35 mSv per year and 0.007 mSv per procedure. Mean radiation exposure per year in the eyes and extremities was 1.63 and 11.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Endourologists did not exceed the threshold doses for radiation exposure to the chest, extremities and lens. Furthermore, the ALARA protocol manages to reduce radiation exposure.

Comparative analysis of radiation exposure in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using popular robotic systems.

Robotic-assisted TKA (RATKA) is a rapidly emerging technique that has been shown to improve precision and accuracy in implant alignment in TKA. Robotic-assisted TKA (RATKA) uses computer software to create a three-dimensional model of the patient's knee. Different types of preoperative imaging, including radiographs and CT scans, are used to create these models, each with varying levels of radiation exposure. This study aims to determine the radiation dose associated with each type of imaging used in RATKA, to inform patients of the potential risks. A retrospective search of our clinical radiology and arthroplasty database was conducted to identify 140 knees. The patients were divided into three groups based on the type of preoperative imaging they received: (1) CT image-based MAKO Protocol, (2) Antero-posterior long leg alignment films (LLAF), (3) standard AP, lateral, and skyline knee radiographs. The dose of CT imaging technique for each knee was measured using the dose-length product (DLP) with units of mGycm2, whereas the measurement for XRAY images was with the dose area product (DAP) with units of Gycm2. The mean radiation dose for patients in the CT (MAKO protocol) image-based group was 1135 mGy.cm2. The mean radiation dose for patients in the LLAF group was 3081 Gycm2. The mean radiation dose for patients undergoing knee AP/lateral and skyline radiographs was the lowest of the groups, averaging 4.43 Gycm2. Through an ANOVA and post hoc analysis, the results between groups was statistically significant. In this study, we found a significant difference in radiation exposure between standard knee radiographs, LLAF and CT imaging. Nonetheless, the radiation dose for all groups is still within acceptable safety limits.

Halved contrast medium dose coronary dual-layer CT-angiography - phantom study of tube current and patient characteristics.

Virtual mono-energetic images (VMI) using dual-layer computed tomography (DLCT) enable substantial contrast medium (CM) reductions. However, the combined impact of patient size, tube voltage, and heart rate (HR) on VMI of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) remains unknown. This phantom study aimed to assess VMI levels achieving comparable contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in CCTA at 50% CM dose across varying tube voltages, patient sizes, and HR, compared to the reference protocol (100% CM dose, conventional at 120 kVp). A 5 mm artificial coronary artery with 100% (400 HU) and 50% (200 HU) iodine CM-dose was positioned centrally in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. Horizontal coronary movement was matched to HR (at 0, < 60, 60-75, > 75 bpm), with varying patient sizes simulated using phantom extension rings. Raw data was acquired using a clinical CCTA protocol at 120 and 140 kVp (five repetitions). VMI images (40-70 keV, 5 keV steps) were then reconstructed; non-overlapping 95% CNR confidence intervals indicated significant differences from the reference. Higher CM-dose, reduced VMI, slower HR, higher tube voltage, and smaller patient sizes demonstrated a trend of higher CNR. Regardless of HR, patient size, and tube voltage, no significant CNR differences were found compared to the reference, with 100% CM dose at 60 keV, or 50% CM dose at 40 keV. DLCT reconstructions at 40 keV from 120 to 140 kVp acquisitions facilitate 50% CM dose reduction for various patient sizes and HR with equivalent CNR to conventional CCTA at 100% CM dose, although clinical validation is needed.

Use of Lung Ultrasound in Reducing Radiation Exposure in Neonates with Respiratory Distress: A Quality Management Project.

Background and Objectives: Our quality management project aims to decrease by 20% the number of neonates with respiratory distress undergoing chest radiographs as part of their diagnosis and monitoring. Materials and Methods: This quality management project was developed at Life Memorial Hospital, Bucharest, between 2021 and 2023. Overall, 125 patients were included in the study. The project consisted of a training phase, then an implementation phase, and the final results were measured one year after the end of the implementation phase. The imaging protocol consisted of the performance of lung ultrasounds in all the patients on CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) or mechanical ventilation (first ultrasound at about 90 min after delivery) and the performance of chest radiographs after endotracheal intubation in any case of deterioration of the status of the patient or if such a decision was taken by the clinician. The baseline characteristics of the population were noted and compared between years 2021, 2022, and 2023. The primary outcome measures were represented by the number of X-rays performed in ventilated patients per year (including the patients on CPAP, SIMV (synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation), IPPV (intermittent positive pressure ventilation), HFOV (high-frequency oscillatory ventilation), the number of X-rays performed per patient on CPAP/year, the number of chest X-rays performed per mechanically ventilated patient/year and the mean radiation dose/patient/year. There was no randomization of the patients for the intervention. The results were compared between the year before the project was introduced and the 2 years across which the project was implemented. Results: The frequency of cases in which no chest X-ray was performed was significantly higher in 2023 compared to 2022 (58.1% vs. 35.8%; p = 0.03) or 2021 (58.1% vs. 34.5%; p = 0.05) (a decrease of 22.3% in 2023 compared with 2022 and of 23.6% in 2023 compared with 2021). The frequency of cases with one chest X-ray was significantly lower in 2023 compared to 2022 (16.3% vs. 35.8%; p = 0.032) or 2021 (16.3% vs. 44.8%; p = 0.008). The mean radiation dose decreased from 5.89 Gy × cm2 in 2021 to 3.76 Gy × cm2 in 2023 (36% reduction). However, there was an increase in the number of ventilated patients with more than one X-ray (11 in 2023 versus 6 in 2021). We also noted a slight annual increase in the mean number of X-rays per patient receiving CPAP followed by mechanical ventilation (from 1.80 in 2021 to 2.33 in 2022 and then 2.50 in 2023), and there was a similar trend in the patients that received only mechanical ventilation without a statistically significant difference in these cases. Conclusions: The quality management project accomplished its goal by obtaining a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilated patients in which chest radiographs were not performed and also resulted in a more than 30% decrease in the radiation dose per ventilated patient. This task was accomplished mainly by increasing the number of patients on CPAP and the use only of lung ultrasound in the patients on CPAP and simple cases.

[The Need for Lens Radiation Protection for Healthcare Provider in Open and Internal Fixation of the Hip Joint].

Increased occupational exposure of radiation workers is a major problem during open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the hip joint, as the surgeon's eye lens is in close proximity to the patient and the X-ray tube. The purposes of this study were to clarify the occupational exposure of radiation workers during ORIF of the hip joint and to examine the need for radiation protection measures. The radiation exposure of radiation workers was evaluated by making an airborne dose distribution map using phantom experiments. The radiation goggles attached with a small optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter were used in clinical practice to measure the lens dose received by the surgeon, and the necessity of radiation goggles was examined. The airborne dose distribution in ORIF of the hip joint showed a wider area of high dose rate during axial fluoroscopy of the femoral neck than during posterior-anterior fluoroscopy. In axial fluoroscopy of the femoral neck, the surgeon was always in the high dose rate range of 10 µGy/min or higher, the nurses were in the dose rate range of 4 to 10 µGy/min, and the radiologic technologists were in the dose rate range of 0.5 µGy/min or lower. The maximum 3 mm dose equivalent to the surgeon per case was 0.38 mSv. In contradiction, radiation goggles were useful in ORIF because they provided approximately 60% shielding. It is advisable to work with radiation goggles to avoid cataracts.

Neurointerventions on two generations of angiography systems: Recent systems reduce radiation exposure by half.

PURPOSE: Fluoroscopically-guided neurointervention may be associated with prolonged procedure time and substantial radiation exposure to the patient and staff. This study sought to examine technological features affecting the potential radiation exposure reduction of new angiography systems, compared to older systems, for neurointerventional procedures. METHODS: Consecutive neurointerventional patients (2020-2022) were retrospectively analyzed. The air kerma at the reference point (Ka,r) and kerma-area product (KAP) were compared between Artis icono and Artis zee (Siemens) using statistical analyses (two-tailed t tests), where P < 0.05 is considered significant. X-ray tube potential and copper filtration were examined. Tests with an anthropomorphic phantom (Sun Nuclear) on Artis icono were conducted and entrance skin exposure and x-ray spectral half value layer were measured. Effective spectral filtration was characterized by x-ray spectral modeling. RESULTS: The number of procedures was 1158 [median (range) age, 59 (7-95) years] on Artis zee and 1087 [60 (1-95) years] on Artis icono, without significant difference in age (p = 0.059) between cohorts. Ka,r was 925.4 (890.6-960.1) mGy [mean (95 % CI)] and KAP was 119.8 (115-124.5) Gy∙cm2 on Artis zee. The measures were 48-50 % lower on Artis icono, 440.5 (411.7-469.4) mGy (Ka,r) and 59.5 (55.4-63.6) Gy∙cm2 (KAP); while the difference in fluoroscopic time between the two generations of angiography systems was insignificant (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The newer angiography system, with updated hardware and software, was found to result in half the radiation exposure compared to older technology of the same manufacturer, even though fluoroscopic time was similar.

National UK Survey of Radiation Doses During Endovascular Aortic Interventions.

PURPOSE: Endovascular aortic repair (EAR) interventions, endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), are associated with significant radiation exposures. We aimed to investigate the radiation doses from real-world practice and propose diagnostic reference level (DRL) for the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation data and essential demographics were retrospectively collected from 24 vascular and interventional radiology centres in the UK for all patients undergoing EAR-standard EVAR or complex, branched/fenestrated (BEVAR/FEVAR), and TEVAR-between 2018 and 2021. The data set was further categorised according to X-ray unit type, either fixed or mobile. The proposed national DRL is the 75th percentile of the collective medians for procedure KAP (kerma area product), cumulative air kerma (CAK), fluoroscopy KAP and CAK. RESULTS: Data from 3712 endovascular aortic procedures were collected, including 2062 cases were standard EVAR, 906 cases of BEVAR/FEVAR and 509 cases of TEVAR. The majority of endovascular procedures (3477/3712) were performed on fixed X-ray units. The proposed DRL for KAP was 162 Gy cm2, 175 Gy cm2 and 266 Gy cm2 for standard EVAR, TEVAR and BEVAR/FEVAR, respectively. CONCLUSION: The development of DRLs is pertinent to EAR procedures as the first step to optimise the radiation risks to patients and staff while maintaining the highest patient care and paving the way for steps to reduce radiation exposures.

3D-navigation for SI screw fixation - How does it affect radiation exposure for patients and medical personnel?

BACKGROUND: 3D-navigation for percutaneous sacroiliac (SI) screw fixation is becoming increasingly common and several studies report great advantages of this technology. However, there is still limited clinical evidence on the efficacy regarding radiation exposure for patient and personnel. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center cohort study. All patients who underwent percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation for an injury of the posterior pelvic ring from 2014 to 2021 were screened. Inclusion criteria were: conclusive radiation dosage reports, signed informed consent, a twelve month follow up and a complete data set. Patients were stratified in two groups (3D-navigation (Group 3D-N) vs. control (Group F)) based on the imaging modality used. Primary outcomes were radiation exposure for patient and personnel. Secondary outcomes were reoperations, complications, and intraoperative precision. RESULTS: Of 392 patients screened, 174 patients (3D-N: n = 50, F: n = 124) could be included for final analysis. We noted a significant reduction of the dose corresponding to potential radiation exposure for medical personnel (-15.3 mGy, 95 %CI: -2.1 to -28.5, p = 0.0232), but also a significant increase of the dose quantifying radiation exposure for patients (+77.0 mGy, 95 %CI: +53.3 to +100.6, p < 0.0001), when using navigation. In addition, the rate of radiographic malplacement was significantly reduced (F: 11.3% vs. 3D-N: 0 %, p = 0.0113) despite a substantial increase in transsacral screw placement (F: 19.4% vs. 3D-N: 76 %). CONCLUSION: Our data clearly suggests that the use of 3D-navigation for percutaneous SI screw fixation decreases radiation exposure for medical personnel, while increasing radiation exposure for patients. Furthermore, intraoperative precision is improved, even in more challenging operations.

Virtual Injection Software Reduces Radiation Exposure and Procedural Time of Prostatic Artery Embolization Performed with Cone-Beam CT.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of virtual injection software (VIS) use during cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-guided prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on both patient radiation exposure and procedural time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved comparative retrospective study analyzed the treatment at a single institution of 131 consecutive patients from January 2020 to May 2022. Cone-beam CT was used with (Group 1, 77/131; 58.8%) or without VIS (Group 2, 54/131, 41.2%). Radiation exposure (number of digital subtraction angiography [DSA] procedures), dose area product (DAP), total air kerma (AK), peak skin dose (PSD), fluoroscopy time (FT), and procedure time (PT) were recorded. The influences of age, body mass index, radial access, and use of VIS were assessed. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis, VIS use (Group 1) showed reduction in the number of DSA procedures (8.6 ± 3.7 vs 16.8 ± 4.3; P < .001), DAP (110.4 Gy·cm2 ± 46.8 vs 140.5 Gy·cm2 ± 61; P < .01), AK (642 mGy ± 451 vs 1,150 mGy ± 637; P = .01), PSD (358 mGy ± 251 vs 860 mGy ± 510; P = .001), FT (35.6 minutes ± 15.4 vs 46.6 minutes ± 20; P = .001), and PT (94.6 minutes ± 41.3 vs 115.2 minutes ± 39.6, P = .005) compared to those in Group 2. In multivariate analysis, AK, PSD, FT, and PT reductions were associated with VIS use (P < .001, P < .001, P = .001, and P = .006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIS during PAE performed under cone-beam CT guidance led to significant reduction in patient radiation exposure and procedural time.

Deep learning-based scan range optimization can reduce radiation exposure in coronary CT angiography.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac computed tomography (CT) is essential in diagnosing coronary heart disease. However, a disadvantage is the associated radiation exposure to the patient which depends in part on the scan range. This study aimed to develop a deep neural network to optimize the delimitation of scan ranges in CT localizers to reduce the radiation dose. METHODS: On a retrospective training cohort of 1507 CT localizers randomly selected from calcium scoring and angiography scans and acquired between 2010 and 2017, optimized scan ranges were delimited by two radiologists in consensus. A neural network was trained to reproduce the scan ranges and was tested on two randomly selected and independent validation cohorts: an internal cohort of 233 CT localizers (January 2018-June 2020) and an external cohort from a nearby hospital of 298 CT localizers (July 2020-December 2020). Localizers where a bypass surgery was visible were excluded. The effective radiation dose to the patient was simulated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Scan ranges of radiographers, radiologists, and the network were compared using an equivalence test; likewise, the reduction in effective dose was tested using a superior test. RESULTS: The network replicated the radiologists' scan ranges with a Dice score of 96.5 ± 0.02 (p < 0.001, indicating equivalence). The generated scan ranges resulted in an effective dose reduction of 10.0% (p = 0.002) in the internal cohort and 12.6% (p < 0.001) in the external cohort compared to the scan ranges delimited by radiographers in clinical routine. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic delimitation of the scan range can result in a radiation dose reduction to the patient. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Fully automated delimitation of the scan range using a deep neural network enables a significant reduction in radiation exposure during CT coronary angiography compared to manual examination planning. It can also reduce the workload of the radiographers. KEY POINTS: • Scan range delimitation for coronary computed tomography angiography could be performed with high accuracy by a deep neural network. • Automated scan ranges showed a high agreement of 96.5% with the scan ranges of radiologists. • Using a Monte Carlo simulation, automated scan ranges reduced the effective dose to the patient by up to 12.6% (0.9 mSv) compared to the scan ranges of radiographers in clinical routine.

Radiation shielding effects of lead equivalent thickness of a radiation protective apron and distance during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided pain interventions: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to evaluate the degree of radiation shielding effects according to lead equivalent thickness and distance during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided lumbar interventions. METHODS: The exposure time and air kerma were recorded using a fluoroscope. The effective dose (ED) was measured with and without the shielding material of the lead apron using 2 dosimeters at 2 positions. According to the lead equivalent thickness of the shielding material and distance from the side of the table, the groups were divided into 4 groups: group 1 (lead equivalent thickness 0.6 mm, distance 0 cm), group 2 (lead equivalent thickness 0.6 mm, distance 5 cm), group 3 (lead equivalent thickness 0.3 mm, distance 0 cm), and group 4 (lead equivalent thickness 0.3 mm, distance 5 cm). Mean differences such as air kerma, exposure time, ED, and ratio of EDs (ED with protector/ED without protector) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 400 cases (100 cases in each group) were collected. The ratio of ED was significantly lower in groups 1 and 2 (9.18 ±â€…2.78% and 9.56 ±â€…3.29%, respectively) when compared to that of groups 3 and 4 (21.93 ±â€…4.19% and 21.53 ±â€…4.30%, respectively). The reductive effect of a 5-cm distance was 33.3% to 36.1% when comparing the ED between groups 1 and 2 and groups 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: The 0.3- and 0.6-mm lead equivalent thickness protectors have a radiation attenuation effect of 78.1% to 78.5% and 90.4% to 90.8%, respectively. The 5-cm distance from the side of the table reduces radiation exposure by 33.3% to 36.1%.

[Radiation exposure of the spine surgeon]. / Exposición a radiación del cirujano de columna.

INTRODUCTION: in general, spine surgeons seek to minimize soft tissue damage by using less invasive approaches, which causes them to use intraoperative images much more frequently than other surgical specialties; therefore, they are at increased risk of radiation exposure. OBJECTIVE: the aim of this work was to analyse the amount of radiation to which the spine surgeon is exposed in different scenarios. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a prospective study with a descriptive, longitudinal non-randomized data source. We carried out this study in the period from 2015 to 2019, the radiologic protection consisted in lead apron, thyroid shield and leaded glasses, there were 10 badge dosimeters. RESULTS: only 4 dosimeters were included in the study, the other six were excluded. During the study period one surgeon suffered thyroid cancer and other suffered of liposarcoma. In the protected group were two surgeons, in the group of aleatory exposition was one surgeon and in the unprotected group was one surgeon. In the study the dosimeter in the unprotected group received more amount of radiation in all the years, we did an inferential analysis per year related with the number of surgeries without significant correlation, we attribute this result because we didn't classified the type of surgery realized by each surgeon. CONCLUSION: we conclude that the spine surgeon must apply the primary methods of radiological protection and that the unprotected spine surgeon receives more amount of radiation in comparison of the protected ones.

INTRODUCCIÓN: en general, los cirujanos de columna buscan minimizar el daño a tejidos blandos empleando abordajes menos invasivos, lo que ocasiona que utilicen imágenes intraoperatorias de una manera mucho más habitual que el resto de las especialidades quirúrgicas; por lo tanto, están en mayor riesgo de exposición de radiación. OBJETIVO: el propósito del trabajo es analizar la cantidad de radiación a la cual está expuesto el cirujano de columna en diferentes escenarios. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: estudio prospectivo con una fuente de datos descriptiva, longitudinal, no aleatorizada. Se llevó a cabo el estudio en el período del año 2015 al 2019; la protección radiológica consistió en chaleco plomado, protector de tiroides y lentes plomados; se usaron 10 dosímetros. RESULTADOS: cuatro dosímetros fueron incluidos en el estudio, los otros seis fueron excluidos. Durante el estudio, un cirujano sufrió de cáncer de tiroides y otro de liposarcoma. En el grupo de protegidos se incluyeron dos cirujanos, en el grupo de protección aleatorizada se incluyó un cirujano y en el grupo sin protección se incluyó un cirujano. El dosímetro del grupo sin protección recibió mayor cantidad de radiación en todos los años, se realizó un análisis inferencial por año relacionado con el número de cirugías no encontrando correlación significativa, atribuimos este resultado a que no clasificamos el tipo de cirugía realizada por cada cirujano. CONCLUSIÓN: el cirujano de columna debe de aplicar los métodos primarios de protección radiológica, ya que los cirujanos de columna sin equipo de protección reciben mayor cantidad de radiación en comparación con los protegidos.

Quality assurance of lead aprons for radiation protection.

Radiation protection is essential to minimize the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Lead equivalent apron is one of the common protective devices to reduce the occupational risk of radiation exposure. The aim of the study is to analyse the percentage attenuation of 0.5 mm lead equivalent apron. Twenty aprons were used for calculating the percentage of attenuation. The computed tomography (CT) phantom was placed on the radiography and CT table at 1 m from the X-ray tube. The readings were taken from the phantom using a detector at 1-m distance with and without lead equivalent aprons. The readings were tabulated and analysed. The mean percentage attenuation of 0.5 mm lead equivalent apron is 95.66 ± 0.61 in radiography (100 kVp), 95.64 ± 0.57 in CT (130 kVp), respectively. The percentage attenuation of lead equivalent aprons is permissible comparing with the literature.