In plain language
Interventional cardiologists had about three times the rate of radiation-type posterior lens opacities seen in unexposed controls (38% vs 12%), and 21% of nurses and technicians showed similar changes, based on eye examinations and estimated lens doses.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Cross-sectional survey
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 209 individuals (116 exposed, 93 unexposed controls)
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Interventional cardiologists had about three times the risk of posterior subcapsular lens opacities compared with unexposed controls.
Key figures: Relative risk (RR) 3.2 (38% vs 12%; P < 0.005)
About one in five nurses and technicians had posterior lens changes typical of radiation exposure.
Key figures: 21%
Estimated cumulative median lens doses were high, especially for cardiologists.
Key figures: 6.0 Sv cardiologists; 1.5 Sv associated personnel
Authors call for urgent radiation protection education to reduce cataract likelihood.
Limits to keep in mind
Cross-sectional design with lens doses estimated retrospectively from questionnaires and laboratory data rather than measured individually; modest sample and possible selection bias among volunteers.
Related research summaries
- Radiation-associated lens opacities in catheterization personnel: results of a survey and direct assessments (2013, Cross-sectional survey)
- Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Occupational radiation exposure to nursing staff during cardiovascular fluoroscopic procedures: A review of the literature (2018, Narrative review)
- Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures, ICRP PUBLICATION 139 (2018, Guideline or consensus statement)
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.