Explore the vast range of titles available.

Intraoperative radiography imaging is essential for accurate spinal implant placement. Hazards caused by ionizing radiation raised concern on personnel’s work life long exposure in the operating room (OR). To particularize a cumulative risk estimation of radiation of personnel and patient, depending on used methods (C-arm fluoroscopy, O-arm navigation) and patient characteristics during spinal surgery, detailed investigation of radiation exposure in a clinical setting is required. Lumbosacral dorsal spinal fusion was performed in 37 patients (19 navigated, 18 fluoroscopy) during this prospective study. Radiation exposure was measured on several body regions with thermoluminescent dosimeters on patient and OR personnel (surgeon, assistant, sterile nurse, radiology technologist). Comparison between patient characteristics and radiation exposure was included. The highest patients values were measured in the surgery field and gonads area during navigation (43.2 ± 19.4 mSv; fluoroscopy: 27.7 ± 31.3 mSv; p = 0.02), followed by the thoracic region during fluoroscopy (7.7 ± 14.8 mSv; navigation: 1.1 ± 1.0 mSv; p = 0.06), other measured regions can be considered marginal in comparison. Amongst OR personnel exposure of the surgeon was significant higher during fluoroscopy (right hand: 566 ± 560 µSv and thoracic region: 275 ± 147 µSv; followed by thyroid and forehead) compared to navigation (right finger: 49 ± 19 µSv; similar levels for all regions; p < 0.001 in all regions). When compared to the surgeon, other OR personnel had significantly lower radiation doses on all body regions using fluoroscopy, and similar dose during navigation. The highest eye’s lens region value was measured during fluoroscopy for the patient (185 ± 165 µSv; navigation: 205 ± 60 µSv; p = 0.57) and the surgeon (164 ± 74 µSv; navigation: 92 ± 41 µSv; p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between patient BMI and radiation exposure to the surgery field during fluoroscopy. To our knowledge, these data present the first real life, detailed comparison of radiation exposure on OR personnel and patients between clinical use of navigation and fluoroscopy. Although patient’s radiation dose is approximately 3-fold during navigation compared to the fluoroscopy, we found that a spinal surgeon could perform up to 10-fold number of surgeries (10.000 versus 883) until maximum permissible annual effective radiation dose would be reached. Especially for a spinal surgeon, who is mainly exposed amongst OR personnel, radiation prevention and protection must remain a main issue.

Space travel has advanced significantly over the last six decades with astronauts spending up to 6 months at the International Space Station. Nonetheless, the living environment while in outer space is extremely challenging to astronauts. In particular, exposure to space radiation represents a serious potential long-term threat to the health of astronauts because the amount of radiation exposure accumulates during their time in space. Therefore, health risks associated with exposure to space radiation are an important topic in space travel, and characterizing space radiation in detail is essential for improving the safety of space missions. In the first part of this review, we provide an overview of the space radiation environment and briefly present current and future endeavors that monitor different space radiation environments. We then present research evaluating adverse biological effects caused by exposure to various space radiation environments and how these can be reduced. We especially consider the deleterious effects on cellular DNA and how cells activate DNA repair mechanisms. The latest technologies being developed, e.g., a fluorescent ubiquitination-based cell cycle indicator, to measure real-time cell cycle progression and DNA damage caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation are presented. Progress in examining the combined effects of microgravity and radiation to animals and plants are summarized, and our current understanding of the relationship between psychological stress and radiation is presented. Finally, we provide details about protective agents and the study of organisms that are highly resistant to radiation and how their biological mechanisms may aid developing novel technologies that alleviate biological damage caused by radiation. Future research that furthers our understanding of the effects of space radiation on human health will facilitate risk-mitigating strategies to enable long-term space and planetary exploration.

It has long been known that relatively high-dose ionising radiation exposure (> 1 Gy) can induce cataract, but there has been no evidence that this occurs at low doses (< 100 mGy). To assess low-dose risk, participants from the US Radiologie Technologists Study, a large, prospective cohort, were followed from date of mailed questionnaire survey completed during 1994–1998 to the earliest of self-reported diagnosis of cataract/cataract surgery, cancer other than non-melanoma skin, or date of last survey (up to end 2014). Cox proportional hazards models with age as timescale were used, adjusted for a priori selected cataract risk factors (diabetes, body mass index, smoking history, race, sex, birth year, cumulative UVB radiant exposure). 12,336 out of 67,246 eligible technologists reported a history of diagnosis of cataract during 832,479 person years of follow-up, and 5509 from 67,709 eligible technologists reported undergoing cataract surgery with 888,420 person years of follow-up. The mean cumulative estimated 5-year lagged eye-lens absorbed dose from occupational radiation exposures was 55.7 mGy (interquartile range 23.6-69.0 mGy). Five-year lagged occupational radiation exposure was strongly associated with self-reported cataract, with an excess hazard ratio/mGy of 0.69 × 10⁻³ (95% CI 0.27 × 10⁻³ to 1.16 × 10⁻³, p < 0.001). Cataract risk remained statistically significant (p = 0.030) when analysis was restricted to < 100 mGy cumulative occupational radiation exposure to the eye lens. A non-significantly increased excess hazard ratio/mGy of 0.34 × 10⁻³ (95% CI – 0.19 × 10⁻³ to 0.97 × 10⁻³, p = 0.221) was observed for cataract surgery. Our results suggest that there is excess risk for cataract associated with radiation exposure from low-dose and low dose-rate occupational exposures.

Decades after weapons testing stopped, researchers are still struggling to decipher the health impacts of radiation exposure around Semipalatinsk. Decades after weapons testing stopped, researchers are still struggling to decipher the health impacts of radiation exposure around Semipalatinsk. Berik Syzdykov looks out of the kitchen window in his home in Semey Credit: Phil Hatcher-Moore

Background and Objectives: The global trend toward increased protection of medical personnel from occupational radiation exposure requires efforts to promote protection from radiation on a societal scale. To develop effective educational programs to promote radiation protection, we clarify the actual status and stage of behavioral changes of spine surgeons regarding radiation protection. Materials and Methods: We used a web-based questionnaire to collect information on the actual status of radiation protection and stages of behavioral change according to the transtheoretical model. The survey was administered to all members of the Society for Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment from 5 October to 5 November 2020. Results: Of 324 members of the Society for Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment, 229 (70.7%) responded. A total of 217 participants were analyzed, excluding 12 respondents who were not exposed to radiation in daily practice. A trunk lead protector was used by 215 (99%) participants, while 113 (53%) preferred an apron-type protector. Dosimeters, thyroid protector, lead glasses, and lead gloves were used by 108 (50%), 116 (53%), 82 (38%), and 64 (29%) participants, respectively. While 202 (93%) participants avoided continuous irradiation, only 120 (55%) were aware of the source of the radiation when determining their position in the room. Regarding the behavioral change stage of radiation protection, 134 (62%) participants were in the action stage, while 37 (17%) had not even reached the contemplation stage. Conclusions: We found that even among the members of the Society for Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment, protection of all vulnerable body parts was not fully implemented. Thus, development of educational programs that cover the familiar risks of occupational radiation exposure, basic protection methods in the operating room, and the effects of such protection methods on reducing radiation exposure in actual clinical practice is warranted.

It is important to measure the radiation dose [3-mm dose equivalent, Hp(3)] in the eye. This study was to determine the current occupational radiation eye dose of staff conducting interventional cardiology procedures, using a novel direct eye dosimeter. We measured the occupational eye dose [Hp(3)] in physicians and nurses in a catheterization laboratory for 6-months. The eye doses [Hp(3)] of 12 physicians (9 with Pb glasses, 3 without), and 11 nurses were recorded using a novel direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRIS TM . We placed dosimeters above and under the glasses. We also estimated the eye dose [0.07-mm dose equivalent] using a neck personal dosimeter. The eye doses among interventional staff ranked in the following order: physicians without Pb glasses > physicians with Pb glasses > nurses. The shielding effect of the glasses (0.07-mm Pb) in a clinical setting was approximately 60%. In physicians who do not wear Pb glasses, the eye dose may exceed the new regulatory limit for IR staff. We found good correlations between the neck dosimeter dose and eye dosimeter dose (inside or outside glasses, R 2  = 0.93 and R 2  = 0.86, respectively) in physicians. We recommend that interventional physicians use an eye dosimeter for correct evaluation of the lens dose.

Context:The increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that involve radiation raises concerns about radiation effects, particularly in children and the radiosensitive thyroid gland.Objectives:Evaluation of relative risk (RR) trends for thyroid radiation doses <0.2 gray (Gy); evidence of a threshold dose; and possible modifiers of the dose-response, e.g., sex, age at exposure, time since exposure.Design and Setting:Pooled data from nine cohort studies of childhood external radiation exposure and thyroid cancer with individualized dose estimates, ≥1000 irradiated subjects or ≥10 thyroid cancer cases, with data limited to individuals receiving doses <0.2 Gy.Participants:Cohorts included the following: childhood cancer survivors (n = 2); children treated for benign diseases (n = 6); and children who survived the atomic bombings in Japan (n = 1). There were 252 cases and 2,588,559 person-years in irradiated individuals and 142 cases and 1,865,957 person-years in nonirradiated individuals.Intervention:There were no interventions.Main Outcome Measure:Incident thyroid cancers.Results:For both <0.2 and <0.1 Gy, RRs increased with thyroid dose (P < 0.01), without significant departure from linearity (P = 0.77 and P = 0.66, respectively). Estimates of threshold dose ranged from 0.0 to 0.03 Gy, with an upper 95% confidence bound of 0.04 Gy. The increasing dose–response trend persisted >45 years after exposure, was greater at younger age at exposure and younger attained age, and was similar by sex and number of treatments.Conclusions:Our analyses reaffirmed linearity of the dose response as the most plausible relationship for “as low as reasonably achievable” assessments for pediatric low-dose radiation-associated thyroid cancer risk.A pooling of nine cohort studies of childhood external radiation exposure revealed a linear increase in risk of thyroid cancer and reaffirmed the “as low as reasonably achievable” principal for pediatric low dose radiation.

BackgroundWe aimed to investigate the radiation dose to the eye lens (lens dose) during cerebral angiography and to evaluate the effectiveness of the lens dose reduction protocol for 3-dimensional rotational angiography (3D-RA) in reducing overall lens dose exposure.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial at a tertiary hospital with patients undergoing cerebral angiography. The lens dose reduction protocol in 3D-RA involved raising the table to position the patient’s eye lens away from the rotation axis. The lens dose was estimated by measuring the entrance surface air kerma using a photoluminescent glass dosimeter. The lens doses of 3D-RA, overall examination, and image quality were analyzed and compared between the two groups.ResultsA total of 20 participants (mean age, 58±9.4 years; including 12 men [60%]) were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the conventional group or the dose reduction group. The median lens dose in 3D-RA was significantly lower in the dose reduction group compared with the conventional group (1.1 mGy vs 4.5 mGy, p<0.001). The total dose was significantly lower in the dose reduction group (median of 7.5 mGy vs 10.2 mGy, p=0.003). In the conventional group, 3D-RA accounted for 46% of the total lens dose, while in the dose reduction group, its proportion decreased to 16%. No significant differences were observed in the image quality between the groups.ConclusionThe lens dose reduction protocol resulted in a significant reduction in the lens dose of the 3D-RA as well as entire cerebral angiography, while maintaining the image quality.

Exposure to ionizing radiation is ubiquitous, and it is well established that moderate and high doses cause ill-health and can be lethal. The health effects of low doses or low dose-rates of ionizing radiation are not so clear. This paper describes a project which sets out to summarize, as a restatement, the natural science evidence base concerning the human health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. A novel feature, compared to other reviews, is that a series of statements are listed and categorized according to the nature and strength of the evidence that underpins them. The purpose of this restatement is to provide a concise entrée into this vibrant field, pointing the interested reader deeper into the literature when more detail is needed. It is not our purpose to reach conclusions on whether the legal limits on radiation exposures are too high, too low or just right. Our aim is to provide an introduction so that non-specialist individuals in this area (be they policy-makers, disputers of policy, health professionals or students) have a straightforward place to start. The summary restatement of the evidence and an extensively annotated bibliography are provided as appendices in the electronic supplementary material.

Continuous exposure to low-level scattered radiation to staff performing cardiac angiography and intervention is of concern. A novel shielding solution (NSS) (Rampart IC M1128) has the potential to provide greater shielding for staff present at the table-side. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the NSS compared with a traditional shielding solution (TSS) in a randomized controlled trial that enrolled 100 patients who underwent cardiac angiography and/or intervention which were randomized to the NSS or TSS. Baseline patient characteristics and radiation dose data were collected. Staff who were scrubbed at the table-side wore 5 real-time dosimeters on the head, collar, waist, ankle, and under the apron. The median primary operator radiation dose was significantly lower (p <0.001) for all dosimeter locations with the NSS when compared with the TSS, being reduced by 86%, 80.0%, 100%, and 50.0% for the head, collar, waist, and leg respectively. Median under-apron dose was 0.0 µSv for both NSS and TSS. Median second operator dose was reduced by 100%, 100%, and 100% for the head, collar, and waist respectively (p <0.001). Median NSS and TSS dose at the ankle and under apron was 0.0 µSv. Median scrub nurse dose was reduced by 50% and 100% for the head and collar respectively (p <0.001). Median NSS and TSS dose at the waist, ankle, and under apron was 0.0 µSv. In conclusion, the NSS tested in this study demonstrates a significant decrease in radiation dose to operators and scrub nurses when compared with traditional radiation protection measures.