ABSTRACT
Because diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures represent one of the main sources of irradiation by ionizing radiation in the population, it has become a priority to become familiar with the quantities and units that account for patient dosimetry. There are countless documents and international recommendations on names, concepts, definitions and areas of application for various quantities and units used in patient dosimetry, in interventional and diagnostic radiology procedures. However, national legislation is not updated in this regard and does not provide, in any of its documents, an updated glossary that enables finding this type of information quickly and precisely. Therefore, this review paper presents in a didactic way and in plain language, the main quantities and units to be used in the dosimetry of patients undergoing diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures.
Debido a que los procedimientos de radiodiagnóstico e intervencionismo representan una de las principales fuentes de irradiación a la población por radiaciones ionizantes, se vuelve prioritario conocer las magnitudes y unidades que dan cuenta de la dosimetría a los pacientes. Existen innumerables documentos y recomendaciones internacionales sobre nombres, conceptos, definiciones y campos de aplicación para diversas magnitudes y unidades utilizadas en la dosimetría de pacientes en procedimientos de radiodiagnóstico e intervencionismo. Sin embargo, la legislación nacional no se encuentra actualizada en este sentido y no contempla en ninguno de sus documentos, un glosario actualizado que permita encontrar en forma rápida y precisa este tipo de información. Por lo anterior, este trabajo de revisión presenta de manera didáctica y en un lenguaje sencillo, las principales magnitudes y unidades que se deben utilizar en la dosimetría de pacientes sometidos a procedimientos de radiodiagnóstico e intervencionismo.
Subject(s)
Humans , Diagnostic Imaging/standards , Kerma , Radiography, Interventional/standards , Radiometry/standardsABSTRACT
Medical exposures constitute the major source of ionizing radiation to which the world population is exposed to. Due to this fact, the European Community has implemented a number of agreements aimed at regulating these activities. For its part, Spain - through a series of Royal Ordinances - has developed a legal framework to broadly address not only Radiation Protection but medical exposure quality criteria as well. These regulations may be used as reference criteria to addressing same issues in our country.
Las exposiciones médicas constituyen la principal fuente de exposición a radiaciones ionizantes a la población mundial. Por esta razón, la Comunidad Europea ha desarrollado una serie de acuerdos, que tienen como objetivo regularizar estas actividades. En el mismo sentido España, a través de una serie de Decretos Reales estructuró un marco legal que considera aspectos amplios de Protección Radiológica, como así también criterios de calidad de las exposiciones médicas, las cuales pueden ser usadas como referencia para desarrollar estos temas en nuestro país.
Subject(s)
Humans , Radiation Protection/legislation & jurisprudence , Radiation Protection/standards , Europe , European Union , Medical Audit , Quality Control , Radiation Exposure Control , Reference ValuesABSTRACT
A radiometric study was carried out in two Radiodiagnostic Units, with seven rooms being assessed. Methodology of the Radiodiagnostics Quality Control Protocol ARCAL XLIX (Cooperation Agreement for the Promotion of Nuclear Science and Technology in Latin America and the Caribbean) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was used. From radiation protection viewpoint, effective dose rates on surface for different relevant positions were calculated.The eigthy-five percent (85 percent) of assessed positions showed effective dose rates within limit values established in the ARCAL XLIX Protocol. Nevertheless, occupationally-exposed personnel (OEP) placed at position A (controlled area) -one meter distant from the phantom- was found to be exceeding by 7 the ARCAL XLIX advised values.
Se realizó un Levantamiento Radiométrico en dos servicios de imaginología con un total de 7 salas de radiodiagnóstico evaluadas. Se utilizó metodología del Protocolo de Control de Calidad en Radiodiagnóstico ARCAL (Acuerdo de Cooperación Regional para la promoción de la ciencia nuclear y tecnología en América Latina y el Caribe) XLIX del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica (OIEA). Se calcularon las tasas de dosis efectiva en superficie en diferentes posiciones de interés desde el punto de vista de la protección radiológica. El 85 por ciento de las posiciones evaluadas presentan tasas de dosis efectivas que cumplen con los valores límites establecidos en el protocolo ARCAL XLIX. No obstante el personal ocupacionalmente expuesto (POE) ubicado a un metro del simulador (área controlada) supera hasta en un factor 7 el límite propuesto en ARCAL XLIX.
Subject(s)
Humans , Radiation Protection/standards , Radiometry/standards , Radiology Department, Hospital , Quality Control , Radiation Dosage , Reference Standards , Health Personnel , Guidelines as TopicSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Cineangiography , Radiation, Ionizing , Radiation Injuries/epidemiology , Age Distribution , Body Mass Index , Body Weight , Coronary DiseaseABSTRACT
Background: Exposure to ionizing radiation is a known hazard of radiological procedures. Aim: To compare the emission of secondary ionizing radiation from two coronary angiographic equipments, one with digital and the other with analog image generation. To evaluate the effectiveness of external radiological protection devices. Material and methods: Environmental and fluoroscopy generated radiation in the cephalic region of the patient was measured during diagnostic coronary angiographies. Ionizing radiation generated in anterior left oblique projection (ALO) and in anterior right oblique projection (ARO) were measured with and without leaded protections. In 19 patients (group 1), a digital equipment was used and in 21 (group 2), an analog equipment. Results: Header radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 1194 ñ 337 and 364 ñ 222 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). During fluoroscopy and with leaded protection generated radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 612 ñ 947 and 70 ñ 61 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). For ALO projection, generated radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 105 ñ 47 and 71 ñ 192 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). During filming the radiation for ALO projection for groups 1 and 2 was 7252 ñ 9569 and 1671 ñ 2038 µGray/h respectively (p = 0.03). Out of the protection zone, registered radiation during fluoroscopy for groups 1 and 2 was 2800 ñ 1741 and 1318 ñ 954 µGray/h respectively (p < 0.001); during filming, the figures were 15500 ñ 5840 and 18961 ñ 10599 µGray/h respectively (NS). Conclusions: Digital radiological equipment has a lower level of ionizing radiation emission than the analog equipment