Background: Studies have shown that protective aprons are carelessly handled after working hours. This, in turn, leads to crack, tear, hole, and creases on the apron, which may lead to distortion in ...the attenuating property and hence reduction in efficiency. Aim and Objective: The aim of the study was to carry out the radiographic assessment of four protective aprons (denoted A-D), to check for tear, crack, or pressure marks and to simulate what the equivalent dose rate, dose/procedure, percentage absorbance, and transmission factor (TF) would be if a physician is to perform hysterosalpingogram (HSG), for which he/she will be averagely exposed twice/procedure. Materials and Methods: This study used a functional mobile X-ray unit, four protective aprons, a measuring tape, an electronic dosimeter and a locally designed phantom as materials. The first phase involved the radiographic exposure of the protective aprons. The second phase involved the use of a plastic phantom to produce scatter, a wooden T-stand to hold the apron, which was positioned 1.6 m diagonally from the X-ray collimator. This position was assumed to be where a physician would stand during the procedure. Results: Two out of the four aprons were defective (50%). One out of the four aprons was rejected because it exceeded the 670 mm2 criteria for acceptance. The mean estimated dose/procedure was 65.69-347.56 μSv, and the estimated mean dose per year for 0.25, 0.35, and 0.50 mm protective aprons was 35,592, 9689, and 7900 μSv/year, respectively. TF for 0.25, 0.35, and 0.50 mm protective aprons was 20.4-23.2, 5.3-6.9, and 3.7%-6.3%, respectively. Absorbance for 0.35 and 0.50 mm protective aprons was ≥94%. There was no statistically significant difference in mean percentage absorbance for 0.25 mm protective aprons, compared to other studies (P = 0.981). Conclusion: Estimated equivalent skin dose per year to a physician with 0.25, 0.35, and 0.50 mm protective aprons was below 500 mSv/year, and the mean percentage absorbance for 0.25 mm protective aprons was seen to be below 90%.
Objectives. Large percentages of X-ray facilities in Nigeria do not use radiation monitoring device; a few percentage that use them do not evaluate or carryout out assessment programs to ascertain ...the detriment to occupationally exposed workers. This study was aimed at evaluating dose reports from 2013 to 2016 for personnel who operate radiation facilities and those that work within radiation field during certain X-ray procedures/examinations in the department of radiology and dentistry respectively; to ascertain if there is correlation between personnel dose and workload in both department and to determine if dose records are within acceptable limit recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety series. Methods. Direct Ion Storage (DIS) dosimeter was used for a total of 35 occupationally exposed personnel who work in the department of radiology and dentistry. The DIS dosimeter was read every two months and results were authomatically saved on the instadose™ platform. Results. The mean (total) dose in radiology department for the first, second, third and fourth year was 0.17 ± 0.08 (3.52) mSv, 0.08 ± 0.03 (0.77) mSv, 0.07 ± 0.04 (0.72) mSv and 0.07 ± 0.05 (0.55) mSv and in Dentistry was 0.08 ± 0.02 (0.73) mSv, 0.05 ± 0.02 (0.42) mSv, 0.05 ± 0.02 (0.24) mSv and 0.07 ± 0.04 (0.34) mSv; respectively. There was significant difference in mean personnel dose from 2013-2016 in Radiology (p=0.028) and in Dentistry Department (p=0.004). Correlation of workload and personnel dose in Radiology (p=0.240) and Dentistry Department (p=0.765) wasn't significant. There was no correlation in mean dose between both department (p=0.256). Conclusion. Overall mean dose in both department for occupationally exposed personnel were below IAEA annual dose limit of 20 mSv averaged over a period of 5 consecutive years. Dose reports of personnel in both department reduced as the year progressed due to radiation safety awareness.
Cilj: Utvrditi razloge za istodobnu upotrebu konvencionalnog i računalnog radiografskog sustava u dvije savezne bolnice te utvrditi njihove prednosti i nedostatke.
Metodologija: Radiolozima, ...radiološkim tehnolozima i stažistima podijeljen je 51 upitnik od 22 tvrdnje koji se sastoji od četiri dijela. Analiza je provedena primjenom Statističkog paketa za društvene znanosti (SPSS), verzija 19.0. Za testiranje hipoteze primijenjen je hi-kvadrat test s razinom značajnosti od p < 0,05.
Rezultati: Većina ispitanika (68,6 %, n = 35) složila se da je liječnikova preferencija jednog radiografskog sustava glavni razlog za istodobnu upotrebu obaju radiografskih sustava na njihovim odjelima. Većina (88,2 %, n = 45) se složila da je glavna prednost istodobne upotrebe obaju radiografskih sustava da svaki od njih može poslužiti kao rezervni u slučaju kvara jednog od sustava. Većina (66,7 %, n = 34) se složila da je glavni nedostatak istodobne upotrebe obaju radiografskih sustava visok trošak primjene i održavanja dvaju sustava istodobno. Vrijednost hi-kvadrata bila je statistički značajna s p < 0,005.
Zaključak: Glavni razlog za upotrebu obaju sustava bila je sklonost liječnika jednom od ta dva sustava. Istraživanje je otkrilo prednosti istodobne upotrebe obaju radiografskih sustava i osiguravanje rezervnog sustava u slučaju kvara. Nedostatak je istodobne upotrebe obaju radiografskih sustava trošak održavanja i neopravdana preferencija jednog radiografskog sustava u odnosu na
drugi.
PDF
