Analysis of differences in radiation dose rates in the fluoroscopic protection zone of digital subtraction angiography devices
10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2025.03.007
- VernacularTitle:DSA设备透视防护区辐射剂量率差异分析
- Author:
Hongwei YU
1
;
Zhan TAN
1
;
Pengxiang QU
1
;
Weixu HUANG
1
;
Xuan LONG
1
Author Information
1. Guangdong Province Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Guangzhou 510300, China.
- Publication Type:OriginalArticles
- Keywords:
Radiation protection;
Interventional radiology;
Radiation dose rate;
Operator
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Health
2025;34(3):348-353
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To analyze bedside radiation dose rates for interventional surgery operators in Guangdong Province, examine dose distribution patterns, and identify potential weaknesses in radiation protection, and to provide guidance for optimizing radiation monitoring and protection measures. Methods A total of 209 digital subtraction angiography devices measured in Guangdong Province between 2017 and 2024 were used as the research objects. The first and second operator positions were set at 30 cm and 90 cm horizontally from the X-ray tube focal point, respectively. Monitoring points were set up at 155, 125, 105, 80, and 20 cm above the ground. Results The median bedside radiation dose rate for interventional surgery operators in Guangdong Province was 83.0 (3.9, 1044.0) μSv/h, indicating instances of exceeding standard limits. The overall dose rates under the old and new standards were 29.8 (3.9-346.5) μSv/h and 114.0 (4.0-1044.0) μSv/h respectively. Results for both standards showed a higher dose rate at the second than the first operator position. The dose rates at the heights of 105 cm (abdomen), 125 cm (chest), and 155 cm (head) were higher in the second operator position than in the first operator position. Additionally, 71.5% and 56.8% of the highest dose rate points under the new and old standards, respectively, were concentrated at 105 cm (abdomen), 125 cm (chest) and 155 cm (head) in the second operator position. Conclusion The principle of protection optimization should be followed, auxiliary protective facilities should be placed correctly, and attention should be paid to the protection of the second surgery operator position, especially above the abdomen. The dose rate results under the new standard were lower than those under the old standard, suggesting that the measurement method may overestimate radiation exposure at the secondary operator position.
