Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2026
Occupational Radiation Exposures in Interventional Radiology and the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hout Jason D, Sturchio Glenn M, Ryu JuHyeong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether significant differences exist in occupational radiation exposures among clinicians, nurses, and technologists working in interventional radiology, potentially warranting role-specific protective measures.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: De-identified radiation exposure records for 1,269 Mayo Clinic employees in radiology and cardiology were reviewed for 2021-2023. Annual exposures for participants meeting screening criteria were determined, with median imputation for missing data. Multiple linear regression compared the natural log of radiation doses between professional role, hospital type, and procedure volume.
RESULTS: 758 individuals met screening criteria (1,609 annual exposures), with most Hp(10) doses (71.2%) between 0-5 mSv. Regression analysis showed differences between clinicians and other roles (P<.05), while nurses and technologists did not differ significantly. Procedure volume had a more significant effect on outcomes than hospital type. Role and procedure volume explained between 24.4-27.8% of the dose variation, with role exerting a larger effect due to proximity to the X-ray tube.
CONCLUSION: These findings support a comprehensive radiation protection approach based on professional role and procedure volume. All professional groups demonstrated sufficiently low exposures to potentially allow the use of reduced protective apron thickness, which may reduce the risk of musculoskeletal complications.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: De-identified radiation exposure records for 1,269 Mayo Clinic employees in radiology and cardiology were reviewed for 2021-2023. Annual exposures for participants meeting screening criteria were determined, with median imputation for missing data. Multiple linear regression compared the natural log of radiation doses between professional role, hospital type, and procedure volume.
RESULTS: 758 individuals met screening criteria (1,609 annual exposures), with most Hp(10) doses (71.2%) between 0-5 mSv. Regression analysis showed differences between clinicians and other roles (P<.05), while nurses and technologists did not differ significantly. Procedure volume had a more significant effect on outcomes than hospital type. Role and procedure volume explained between 24.4-27.8% of the dose variation, with role exerting a larger effect due to proximity to the X-ray tube.
CONCLUSION: These findings support a comprehensive radiation protection approach based on professional role and procedure volume. All professional groups demonstrated sufficiently low exposures to potentially allow the use of reduced protective apron thickness, which may reduce the risk of musculoskeletal complications.