ArticleJournal of neuroendovascular therapy2022
Monitoring and Protection against Radiation Dose to Eyes of Operators Performing Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Nationwide Study in Japan.
Article in Journal of neuroendovascular therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Protection of the Eye Lens in Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Peak Skin Doses and Lens Doses during Interventional Neuroradiology Using a Direct Measurement System.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To meet the new standard of the annual dose limit for the eye lens recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection, radiation doses of neuroendovascular procedures in Japanese institutions were investigated. Methods: Radiation doses to operators involved in 304 neuroendovascular procedures at 30 Japanese institutions were prospectively surveyed. The institutions recruited at an annual meeting of the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy participated voluntarily. A maximum of 10 wireless dosimeters were attached to the radiation protection (RP) goggles, the ceiling-mounted RP shielding screen, and the operators' forehead and neck over the protective clothing. Doses recorded inside the goggles were defined as eye lens doses for operators who wore RP goggles, while doses to the forehead were defined as eye lens doses for those who did not. The shielding effect rates of the protection devices were calculated, and statistical analysis was performed for the comparison of radiation doses. Results: From 296 analyzed cases, mean eye lens radiation doses per procedure were 0.088 mGy for the left eye and 0.041 mGy for the right eye. For the left eye, that dose without RP equipment was 0.176 mGy and that with RP goggles plus an RP shielding screen was 0.034 mGy. Four parameters, including left eye dose, air kerma at the patient entrance reference point, fluoroscopic time, and the total number of frames, were assessed for five types of neurovascular procedures. Of them, transarterial embolization for dural arteriovenous fistula was associated with the highest eye lens dose at 0.138 mGy. The shielding effect rates of protection goggles were 60% for the left and 55% for the right RP goggle. The mean doses to the inner and outer surfaces of the RP shielding screen were 0.831 mGy and 0.040 mGy, respectively, amounting to a shielding effect rate of 95%. Conclusion: To meet the new standard, both RP goggles and RP shielding screens are strongly recommended to be used effectively. Without proper use of radiological protection devices, the number of neuroendovascular procedures that one operator performs per year will be limited under the new guideline.
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.