Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association · 2016
Exposure of the examiner to radiation during myelography versus radiculography and root block: A comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yamane Kentaro, Kai Nobuo, Miyamoto Tadashi, Matsushita Tomohiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Exposure to radiation over many years prompts concerns regarding potential health-related effects, particularly the incidence of cataracts and the development of cancer. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the exposure of the examiner to radiation during myelography versus radiculography and root block.
METHODS: A total of 114 examinations were performed in our institute in the 6 months. Sixty-two examinations were performed during myelography in the first 3 months (MG group), while 52 were performed during radiculography and root block in the last 3 months (RB group). The examiner wore a torso protector, a neck protector, radiation protection gloves, and radiation protection glasses. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeter badges were placed on both the inside and the outside of each protector. The dosimeters were exchanged every month. Radiation doses (mSv) were measured as the integrated radiation quantity every month from the OSL dosimeters. The effective dose and the equivalent doses of hand, skin, and eyes were investigated.
RESULTS: The mean equivalent doses were significantly lower outside the neck, torso, eye protectors, and inside the torso protector in the RB group than in the MG group. Conversely, the mean equivalent dose was significantly lower outside the hand protector in the MG group than in the RB group. The use of a neck protector significantly decreased the effective dose compared to the non-use of a neck protector in the RB group.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed the standard radiation exposure to the examiner during myelography, radiculography, and root block. Receiving full protection including a neck protector and protection gloves is an easy and reliable means to reduce radiation exposure.
METHODS: A total of 114 examinations were performed in our institute in the 6 months. Sixty-two examinations were performed during myelography in the first 3 months (MG group), while 52 were performed during radiculography and root block in the last 3 months (RB group). The examiner wore a torso protector, a neck protector, radiation protection gloves, and radiation protection glasses. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeter badges were placed on both the inside and the outside of each protector. The dosimeters were exchanged every month. Radiation doses (mSv) were measured as the integrated radiation quantity every month from the OSL dosimeters. The effective dose and the equivalent doses of hand, skin, and eyes were investigated.
RESULTS: The mean equivalent doses were significantly lower outside the neck, torso, eye protectors, and inside the torso protector in the RB group than in the MG group. Conversely, the mean equivalent dose was significantly lower outside the hand protector in the MG group than in the RB group. The use of a neck protector significantly decreased the effective dose compared to the non-use of a neck protector in the RB group.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed the standard radiation exposure to the examiner during myelography, radiculography, and root block. Receiving full protection including a neck protector and protection gloves is an easy and reliable means to reduce radiation exposure.