ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2020
Radiation exposure of interventional cardiologists during coronary angiography: evaluation by phantom measurement and computer simulation.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
During interventional cardiological procedures, operators are exposed to patients' scatter radiation. Therefore, we measured the radiation exposure of the operator's eyeball, thyroid, and chest wall during angiography. We used the optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter in the anthropomorphic phantom and developed Monte Carlo simulations using the Korean human voxel phantom. At 15 frames/s, the radiation dose of the operator's right eyeball (RE), left eyeball (LE), thyroid (T), and chest wall (CW) at the femoral artery puncture position (FAPP) with protective equipment (PE) was 0.015, 0.16, 0.012, and 0.014 mGy, respectively. At 7.5 frames/sec, the radiation dose of the operator's RE, LE, T, and CW at FAPP with PE was 33.33%, 18.75%, 52.94%, and 45.00% lower than that of those at the radial artery puncture position (RAPP), respectively. At 15 frames/s, the radiation dose of the operator's RE, LE, T, and CW at RAPP without PE was 1.76 times, 2.23 times, 2.76 times, and 2.05 times higher than that of those with PE. Per the simulation results, the absorbed radiation dose of the eye ball, thyroid gland, and myocardium of the heart at FAPP with and without PE under 15 frame/s was 9.68%, 13.04%, 8.33% and 9.98%, 6.00%, 8.82% lower than at RAPP under similar conditions. Effective measures for occupational radiological protection are lower frame rate exposure, increased distance from the X-ray source, and PE use. Radiologist protection in interventional cardiology cannot be handled independently of patient protection, owing to several correlations; thus, reducing the patient dose will reduce the operator dose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.