In plain language
In one neurointerventional angiography suite, estimated annual doses at radiologic technologist working positions were low (0.44 mSv), but dose varied by room location and was highest at foot level. Ceiling lead glass shields cut measured dose rates more than distance alone.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Radiologic technologists, Phantom or simulation (no people)
- Size
- n = 57 procedures
- Topics
- Dosimetry and monitoringRoom shielding and protective devicesDose reduction techniquesEye lens and cataractsTraining and education
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
Extrapolated annual whole-body exposure at technologist working positions was low, well below the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 20 mSv limit.
Key figures: 0.44 mSv/year (highest 1.03 mSv near supply room door)
Ceiling-mounted lead glass shields reduced torso and eye dose rates more than distance alone.
Key figures: up to factor 31 (shielding) vs factor 19 (distance)
Low-dose digital subtraction angiography (DSA) protocol lowered ambient dose rate compared with the standard protocol.
Key figures: 650 µSv/h (95% confidence interval (CI) 309-991) vs 499 µSv/h (95% CI 174-823); ~23%
Highest exposure occurred at foot level rather than torso or eye level.
Key figures: +59% standard protocol, +67% low-dose protocol
Experimental dose rates varied widely across the room, highest at the unshielded anesthesiologist side.
Key figures: mean 885 µSv/h; range 12 to 6109 µSv/h
Limits to keep in mind
Single-center study with one month of area dosimetry extrapolated to a year, mostly fixed-position rather than worn dosimeters; experimental measurements used a head-only phantom, single unrepeated readings, and a monitor that may have been saturated by pulsed high dose rates.
Related research summaries
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
- Occupational radiation exposure to nursing staff during cardiovascular fluoroscopic procedures: A review of the literature (2018, Narrative review)
- Radiation-Induced Noncancer Risks in Interventional Cardiology: Optimisation of Procedures and Staff and Patient Dose Reduction (2013, Narrative review)
- SIR-CIRSE Joint Guideline on Occupational Radiation Protection (2010, Guideline or consensus statement)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the full text 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.