Sensitivity of the diagnostic radiological index of protection to procedural factors in fluoroscopy.

PURPOSE To evaluate the sensitivity of the diagnostic radiological index of protection (DRIP), used to quantify the protective value of radioprotective garments, to procedural factors in fluoroscopy in an effort to determine an appropriate set of scatter-mimicking primary beams to be used in measuring the DRIP. METHODS Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine the shape of the scattered x-ray spectra incident on the operator in different clinical fluoroscopy scenarios, including interventional radiology and interventional cardiology (IC). Two clinical simulations studied the sensitivity of the scattered spectrum to gantry angle and patient size, while technical factors were varied according to measured automatic dose rate control (ADRC) data. Factorial simulations studied the sensitivity of the scattered spectrum to gantry angle, field of view, patient size, and beam quality for constant technical factors. Average energy (Eavg) was the figure of merit used to condense fluence in each energy bin to a single numerical index. RESULTS Beam quality had the strongest influence on the scattered spectrum in fluoroscopy. Many procedural factors affect the scattered spectrum indirectly through their effect on primary beam quality through ADRC, e.g., gantry angle and patient size. Lateral C-arm rotation, common in IC, increased the energy of the scattered spectrum, regardless of the direction of rotation. The effect of patient size on scattered radiation depended on ADRC characteristics, patient size, and procedure type. CONCLUSIONS The scattered spectrum striking the operator in fluoroscopy is most strongly influenced by primary beam quality, particularly kV. Use cases for protective garments should be classified by typical procedural primary beam qualities, which are governed by the ADRC according to the impacts of patient size, anatomical location, and gantry angle.

[1]  L. Wagner,et al.  On the (f)utility of measuring the lead equivalence of protective garments. , 2013, Medical physics.

[2]  A. Pasciak,et al.  Calculating the peak skin dose resulting from fluoroscopically guided interventions. Part I: Methods , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[3]  E Mainegra-Hing,et al.  Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  M. Terry LaFrance Functionality and operation of fluoroscopic automatic brightness control/automatic dose rate control logic in modern cardiovascular and interventional angiography systems , 2012 .

[5]  E Mainegra-Hing,et al.  Optimizing non-Pb radiation shielding materials using bilayers. , 2009, Medical physics.

[6]  R. Cloutier Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. , 1989 .

[7]  J. McCaffrey,et al.  Radiation shielding materials and radiation scatter effects for interventional radiology (IR) physicians. , 2012, Medical physics.

[8]  J. Prisciandaro,et al.  Dosimetric impact of density variations in Solid Water 457 water‐equivalent slabs , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[9]  A. Pasciak,et al.  Application of the diagnostic radiological index of protection to protective garments. , 2015, Medical physics.

[10]  Pei-Jan Paul Lin,et al.  Functionality and operation of fluoroscopic automatic brightness control/automatic dose rate control logic in modern cardiovascular and interventional angiography systems: a report of Task Group 125 Radiography/Fluoroscopy Subcommittee, Imaging Physics Committee, Science Council. , 2012, Medical physics.

[11]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Spektr: a computational tool for x-ray spectral analysis and imaging system optimization. , 2004, Medical physics.