A Study of Radiation Doses to the Patient and Medical Team at Embolization Procedures

  • Castilho, Alvaro Vilas Boas (Departamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP) ;
  • Szjenfeld, Denis (Departamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP) ;
  • Nalli, Darcio (Departamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP) ;
  • Fornazari, Vinicius (Departamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP) ;
  • Moreira, Antonio Carlos (Departamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP) ;
  • Medeiros, Regina Bitelli (Departamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP)
  • Received : 2019.01.21
  • Accepted : 2019.04.03
  • Published : 2019.09.30


Background: This study aimed to estimate occupational doses and patient peak skin doses (PSDs) during interventional radiology procedures. Materials and Methods: We examined data from brain embolization (n = 30), hepatic chemoembolization (n = 50), and uterine embolization (n = 12). The PSDs were measured using radiochromic film around the patient's head (group 1) or abdominal/pelvic region (group 2). Acquisition technical data and kerma-area products (KAP) were also recorded. Occupational doses were measured using $Instadose^{TM}$ dosimeters near the left eye region (LER), chest, and left ankle. Results and Discussion: The third quartile (median) KAP values were $408.1(235.3)Gy{\cdot}cm^2$ for group 1 and $584.4(449.4)Gy{\cdot}cm^2$ for group 2. The average PSDs were greatest during vascular procedures, reaching 1,004.4 (786.4) mGy, and the highest PSD was 2,352.6 mGy (during hepatic chemoembolization). The third quartile (median) occupational doses were 0.35 (0.21) mSv at the LER, 0.25 (0.15) mSv at the chest, and 1.47 (0.64) mSv at the left ankle. Occupational doses at the LER were higher than at the chest, which highlights the importance of protective glasses and suspended shields. The occupational doses at the ankle region were also high, which highlights the importance of using a lead-lined curtain attached to the table. Conclusion: The results indicate that physicians can reach, for eye region, the weekly occupational dose limit after around 15 procedures, even when using proper protection. The average PSD values were below the threshold for tissue reactions, although the complexity of these procedures emphasises the importance of considering related risks.


  1. Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists. 7th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby. 2001;364-616.
  2. Sun Z, AbAziz A, Yusof AK. Radiation-induced noncancer risks in interventional cardiology: optimisation of procedures and staff and patient dose reduction. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013;2013: 962-976.
  3. Freysz M, Mertz L, Lipsker D. Temporary localized alopecia following neuroradiological procedures: 18 cases. Ann. Dermatol. Venereol. 2014;141(1):15-22.
  4. Rehani MM, Ortiz-Lopez P. Radiation effects in fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventions--keeping them under control. Int. J. Cardiol. 2006;109:147-151.
  5. Bor D, Cekirge S, Turkay T, Turan O, Gulay M, Onal E, Cil B. Patient and staff doses in interventional neuroradiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2005;117:62-68.
  6. Fletcher DW, Miller DL, Balter S, Taylor MA. Comparison of four techniques to estimate radiation dose to skin during angiographic and interventional radiology procedures. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2002;13:391-397.
  7. D'Alessio D, Giliberti C, Soriani A, Carpanese L, Pizzi G, Vallati G, Strigari L. Dose evaluation for skin and organ in hepatocellular carcinoma during angiographic procedure. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013;25:32-81.
  8. Ukisu R, Kushihashi T, Soh I. Skin injuries caused by fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: case-based review and self-assessment module. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;193(6 Suppl):59-69.
  9. Vañó E, Arranz L, Sastre JM, Moro C, Ledo A, Gárate MT, Minguez I. Dosimetric and radiation protection considerations based on some cases of patient skin injuries in interventional cardiology. Br. J. Radiol. 1998;71:510-516.
  10. Vano E, Gonzalez L, Beneytez F, Moreno F. Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimized interventional radiology laboratories. Br. J. Radiol. 1998;71:728-733.
  11. Mooney RB, McKinstry CS, Kamel HA. Absorbed dose and deterministic effects to patients from interventional neuroradiology. Br. J. Radiol. 2000;73:745-751.
  12. Theodorakou C, Horrocks JA. A study on radiation doses and irradiated areas in cerebral embolisation. Br. J. Radiol. 2003;76: 546-552.
  13. Struelens L, Vanhavere F, Bosmans H, Van Loon R, Mol H. Skin dose measurements on patients for diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology: a multicentre study. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2005;114:143-146.
  14. Verma S, Srinivas C, Thomas M. Radiation-induced temporary alopecia after embolization of cerebral aneurysm. Indian J. Dermatol. 2014;59(6):633.
  15. Podlipnik S, Giavedoni P, San-Roman L, Ferrando J. Square alopecia: a new type of transient alopecia of the scalp following fluoroscopically endovascular embolization. Int. J. Trichology. 2013;5:201-203.
  16. Huda W, Peters KR. Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neuroradiologically guided embolization procedure. Radiology. 1994;193:642-644.
  17. International Atomic Energy Agency. Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. 2013;35-661.
  18. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Avoidance of Radiation Injuries from Medical Interventional Procedures. 2000;30(2):7-67.
  19. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Procedures - NCRP Report N$\circ$. 168;2010.
  20. Mahesh M. NCRP 168: its significance to fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2013;10:551-552.
  21. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects Atomic Radiations. Source and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2008: report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. 1. 2011;172-328.
  22. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, Romano-Miller M, Rehani MM. Radiation-associated lens opacities in catheterization personnel: results of a survey and direct assessments. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2013;24:197-204.
  23. Webinar: Radiation Protection of PationsUnit. Approaches to estimating radiation exposure to the lens of the eye during interventional procedures (4 May 2016, 3 pm CET). Available from: [in Spanish].
  24. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention. 2012;7:1081-1086.
  25. Vaño E, Fernandez JM, Sanchez RM, Dauer LT. Realistic approach to estimate lens doses and cataract radiation risk in cardiology when personal dosimeters have not been regularly used. Health Phys. 2013;105:330-339.
  26. Jacob S, Boveda S, Bar O, Brezin A, Maccia C, Laurier D, Bernier MO. Interventional cardiologists and risk of radiation-induced cataract: results of a French multicenter observational study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013;167:1843-1847.
  27. Ciraj-Bjelac O, Beganovic A, Faj D, Ivanovic S, Videnovic I, Rehani M. Status of radiation protection in interventional cardiology in four East European countries. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2011;147:62-67.
  28. Garzón WJ, Khoury H, Ovalle SAM, Medeiros RB. Performance of the InstadoseTM Dosemeter for Interventional Radiology and Cardiology Application. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2019;183(4):522-528.
  29. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs--threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. ICRP publication. 2012; 118:1-322.
  30. International Atomic Energy Agency. Report of a consultation on justification of patient exposures in medical imaging. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2009;135:137-144.
  31. Wall BF. Diagnostic reference levels--the way forward. Br. J. Radiol. 2001;74:785-788.
  32. Mahesh M. Fluoroscopy: patient radiation exposure issues. Radiographics. 2001;21:1033-1045.
  33., June 2017.
  34. Rehani MM, Vano E, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Kleiman NJ. Radiation and cataract. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2011;147:300-304.
  35. Butson MJ, Cheung T, Peter KN. XR type-R radiochromic film xray energy response. Phys. Med. Biol. 2005;50:195-199.
  36. D'Ercole L, Mantovani L, Thyrion FZ, Bocchiola M, Azzaretti A, Di Maria F, Saluzzo CM, Quaretti P, Rodolico G, Scagnelli P. A study on maximum skin dose in cerebral embolization procedures. AJNR. 2007;28:503-507.
  37. McCabe BP, Speidel MA, Pike TL, Lysel MSV. Calibration of Gaf-Chromic XR-RV3 radiochromic film for skin dose measurement using standardized x-ray spectra and a commercial flatbed scanner. Med. Phys. 2011;38(4):1919-1930.
  38. International Atomic Energy Agency. Patient Dose Optimization in fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures: final report of a coordinated research project. IAEA Publication TECDOC. 2010;1641:17-106.
  39. Waite JC, Fitzgerald M. An assessment of methods for monitoring entrance surface dose in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2001;94:89-92.
  40. Schueler BA, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. 3D cerebral angiography: radiation dose comparison with digital subtraction angiography. AJNR. 2005;26:1898-1901.
  41. Martin CJ. A review of radiology staff doses and dose monitoring requirements. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;136(3):140-157.
  42. Clairand I, Struelens L, Bordy JM, Daures J, Debroas J, Denozieres M, Donadille L, Gouriou J, Itie C, Vaz P. Intercomparison of active personal dosemeters in interventional radiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2008;129:340-345.