Keywords:
Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Radiation physics, Interventional vascular, Fluoroscopy, Dosimetry, Radiation safety, Physics, Dosimetric comparison
Authors:
E. Tzanis, J. Damilakis, D. Tsetis; Iraklion, Crete/GR
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2019/C-0254
Methods and materials
Α 0.25 mm Pb equivalent drape (Ecolab,
Saint Paul,
Minnesota,
USA) with dimensions of 41 cm by 41 cm was evaluated (Figure 1).
Experiments were performed using two physical anthropomorphic phantoms (Rando – Alderson Research Labs,
CA,
USA).
The phantom - operator was placed in the position of the primary interventionalist.
The second phantom was oriented in the head – first supine position on the table.
In each simulation,
16 thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) were placed on the phantom – operator (Figure 2).
Τo evaluate the effect of drape positioning on Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system two experiments were performed.
In the first experiment the drape was not placed into the field.
In the second experiment,
about half of the drape was placed into the field (Figure 3).
Exposure parameters were the same for all simulations.
All exposures were performed on a Siemens Axiom Artis FA angiographic unit (Siemens,
Erlangen,
Germany) with a digital fluorography C-arm assembly (Figure 4).