232 R. A. C. Guassu et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 221 – 233
intrinsic factors of the facility, dependent on parameters such as fluoroscopic equipment, positioning of professionals, and protocols. Therefore, the methodology for obtaining these factors can be used in any service using fluoroscopic equipment with P KA indicator. The comparison of the effective doses obtained through the different methods( dosimetry and P KA estimation) showed a good degree of agreement with low dispersions. In addition to this, the ranges of differences were very low if compared to the magnitude of doses in these procedures.
5 Conclusion
This study introduces an approach by integrating personal dosimetry with P KA analysis in interventional radiology. The methodology employed yields crucial insights into the distribution of radiation doses and occupational exposure within specific clinical scenarios, addressing gaps in previous research. Our findings affirm the effectiveness of P KA as a dependable indicator for radiation exposure, significantly enhancing the safety and radiological protection protocols for healthcare professionals engaged in interventional procedures.
Furthermore, the practical implications of our results underscore the potential for tailored radiological protection measures in diverse clinical settings. As we advocate for the widespread adoption of this methodology, our study not only contributes to the current understanding of radiation exposure patterns but also sets the stage for future research directions. Areas such as the application of our methodology in different clinical environments and the exploration of additional protective measures represent promising avenues for continued investigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would also like to thank Sapra Landauer ® who supplied the OSL dosimeters for this study.
Funding
This research was funded by São Paulo Research Foundation( Process number: 2023 / 01156-6) and by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development( Process number: 304992 / 2022-4).
Conflicts of interest
No conflicts of interest. Data availability statement
No data analysed during this study are available on request. Our ethics committee only approved their use in this particular study.
Author contribution statement
The authors of this work have contributed equally to its completion. Each member has brought unique expertise, dedication, and effort to the project, resulting in a collaborative and balanced effort.
Ethics approval
This research was developed in the Laboratory of Physics Applied to Radiodiagnosis( LAFAR), duly approved by the Research Ethics Committee( CEP) under protocol: CAAE 16932513.5.0000.5411.
Informed consent
This study did not involve direct participation of patients or the collection of personal data. The research focused on estimating the effective dose for interventional radiologists using radiation measurements in a controlled occupational environment, with no additional impact or risk to the professionals involved.
References
Bacchim Neto FA, Alves AFF, Mascarenhas YM, Giacomini G, Maués NHPB, Nicolucci P, de Freitas CCM, Alvarez M, Pina DR. 2017. Efficiency of personal dosimetry methods in vascular interventional radiology. Phys Med 37: 58 – 67.
Castrillón WS, Morales J. 2020. Comparison of crystalline lens dose rates in interventional cardiology for systems with and without dose optimization software. Radioprotection 55: 135 – 139.
Costa PR, Tomal A, de Oliveira Castro JC, Nunes IPF, Nersissian DY, Sawamura MVY, Leão Filho H, Lee C. 2023. Diagnostic reference level quantities for adult chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations: correlation with organ doses. Insights Imaging 14: 60.
Damet J, Bailat C, Bize P, Buchillier Th, Tosic M, Verdun FR, Baechler S. 2011. Individual monitoring of medical staff working in interventional radiology in Switzerland using double dosimetry. Radiat Measur 46: 1839 – 1842.
Delichas M, Psarrakos K, Molyvda-Athanassopoulou E, Giannoglou G, Sioundas A, Hatziioannou K, Papanastassiou E. 2003. Radiation exposure to cardiologists performing interventional cardiology procedures. Eur J Radiol 48: 268 – 273.
Dogan NÖ. 2018. Bland-Altman analysis: a paradigm to understand correlation and agreement. Turk J Emerg Med 18: 139 – 141.
Erdem O, Ay M, Yalcin A, Bilgic S, Sanlıdilek U, Amasyalı B, Sancak T, Olgar T. 2022. Patient and staff doses for various interventional radiology and cardiology examinations in Turkey. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 198: 158 – 166.
Faroux L, Blanpain T, Nazeyrollas P, Tassan-Mangina S, Heroguelle V, Tourneux C, Baudin F, Metz D. 2018. Reduction in exposure of interventional cardiologists to ionising radiation over a 10-year period. Int J Cardiol 259: 57 – 59.
Häusler U, Czarwinski R, Brix G. 2009. Radiation exposure of medical staff from interventional X-ray procedures: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 19: 2000 – 2008.
Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, Bakal CW, Creager MA, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Murphy WR, Olin JW, Puschett JB, Rosenfield KA, Sacks D, Stanley JC, Taylor LM Jr, White CJ, White J, White RA, Antman EM, Smith SC Jr, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Gibbons RJ, Hunt SA, Jacobs AK, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B 2006. American Association for Vascular Surgery; Society for Vascular Surgery; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology; Society of Interventional Radiology; ACC / AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease; American Association of