In plain language
At one Malaysian hospital, eye lens doses measured near the eye in 41 fluoroscopy staff varied widely; primary operators and their left eye received the most, and kerma-area product (KAP) or fluoroscopy time poorly predicted eye dose, supporting direct eye dosimetry.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 41 medical personnel (79 procedures)
- Where
- Malaysia
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Median eye lens dose per procedure was low on average but varied widely.
Key figures: 0.052 mSv (range 0.0155 to 0.672 mSv)
KAP, fluoroscopy time and number of runs correlated only weakly to moderately with eye lens dose, so they were not useful predictors.
Primary operators received significantly higher eye lens doses than their assistants.
The operators' left eye received the highest dose.
Authors conclude direct in vivo eye dosimetry is needed rather than indirect estimates.
Limits to keep in mind
Single-hospital study with a small sample of 41 staff and 79 procedures; abstract does not report use of protective eyewear or shields, or breakdown by role and procedure type.
Related research summaries
- Development of an AR application for radiation protection optimisation education of medical staff in x-ray fluoroscopy (2026, Phantom or simulation study)
- Mailed dose record review of occupational dosimetry records among Japanese medical radiation workers: the OREMS Study (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Occupational radiation exposure and crystalline lens density in perioperative nurses: a short communication (2026, Cross-sectional survey)
- Investigation of radiation doses to the eyes of patients and medical staff during a videofluoroscopic swallowing study: a phantom study (2025, Phantom or simulation study)
- Intraoperative Staff Radiation Exposure During Aortic Endovascular Procedures (2024, Dosimetry measurement study)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.