226 R. A. C. Guassu et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 221 – 233 Fig. 3. Coronary Angiography: equivalent doses received by interventionists A( white boxplot) and B( gray boxplot) in eye lens, thyroid, chest, abdomen, hands and feet.
3.2
Equipment parameters profile
Each procedure’ s Total kerma and P KA values were obtained through the fluoroscopic equipment. The entire kerma profile per procedure for each modality is presented in Figure 8A. P KA profile per procedure for each modality is shown in Figure 8B.
3.3 E D and effective dose profile
Through the equivalent doses of the procedures, the profile of effective doses was estimated for Interventionist A, presented in Figure 9, and for Interventionist B, in Figure 10. The effective doses indicated by the white boxplots were calculated by converting external doses to internal ones, as described in Section 2.5. The gray boxplots represent the reference dose, estimated using a single representative dosimeter multiplied by the apron transmission factor in the thorax region( Häusler et al., 2009).
3.4 Factor f and comparison of E f with E D
The factor f for estimating the effective dose from P KA was determined using Eq.( 4) for each modality. These results are shown in Table 4.
Figure 11 presents Bland-Altman’ s graphs for interventionists A and B in all modalities. Since the doses in angiographies are significantly smaller than those of angioplasties, the two groups were separated. The agreement between the methods was in the range of �0.13 mSv to 0.13 mSv for angiographies and �8.3 mSv to 5.3 mSv for angioplasties with a bias of 0.00 mSv for angiographies and �1.5 mSv for angioplasties.
4 Discussion
This study presents an innovative analysis of occupational dosimetry in IR procedures, using the P KA for rapid estimates of staff exposure. In contrast to( Szumska et al., 2016), which focused on coronary angiography and examined 60 procedures, our work expands to include multiple modalities, such as coronary angioplasty, cerebral angiography, and peripheral angiography, totaling 166 procedures assessed, exclusively in Coronary Angiography.
When specifically comparing the doses received by operators in coronary angiography procedures, we observed significant differences between our study and that of Szumska et al.( 2016). With a substantially larger number of procedures analyzed, our results indicate variations in doses across different anatomical regions. For Interventionist A, comparable to the primary operator( Position 1) in( Szumska et al., 2016), higher doses were found in the abdomen and hand regions( medians of 33 mSv and 41 mSv, respectively), compared to doses in the operator’ s chest and hand regions( medians 5 mSv and 36 mSv, respectively). This difference suggests increased exposure in the abdomen and hand regions in our study, possibly due to variations in procedural techniques, positions during intervention, or differences in equipment used. In both cases, the dose in the hands was higher than in the abdomen / chest region, with comparable values( 41 mSv vs. 36mSv), but the dose in the abdomen( 41 mSv) is significantly higher than the average dose in the chest observed in the previous study, possibly due to the lower position and proximity to the patient or beam scatter.
For Interventionist B, analogous to the nurse( Position 2) in Szumska et al.( 2016), higher doses were measured in the eye and hand regions( medians of 4 mSv and 3 mSv), significantly lower than the doses received by the nurse( 6 mSv and 11 mSv