Comparing Occupational Exposure from 18F-FDG Injection Procedure Using a Traditional Injection Method Versus an Automated Injection System.

IF 1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Raju Gupta, Shantanu Pande, Ashwini P Shinde
{"title":"Comparing Occupational Exposure from <sup>18</sup>F-FDG Injection Procedure Using a Traditional Injection Method Versus an Automated Injection System.","authors":"Raju Gupta, Shantanu Pande, Ashwini P Shinde","doi":"10.2967/jnmt.124.269103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We evaluated occupational radiation exposure associated with <sup>18</sup>F-FDG injection using a traditional manual approach versus an automated injection system. <b>Methods:</b> Wrist and whole-body radiation exposure of nuclear medicine personnel using a manual injection method versus an automated injection system for <sup>18</sup>F-FDG administration were assessed using electronic personal dosimeters. Radiation exposure while configuring both systems was also evaluated. The dose administered met the requirements of the \"as low as reasonably achievable\" principle. Radiation exposure during initial setup and dose administration, residual activity, dose accuracy, presence of contamination, and frequency of extravasation were compared between methods. <b>Results:</b> Compared with the traditional manual method, use of the automated injection system resulted in significantly lower mean radiation exposure to medical physicists' wrists (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Radiation exposure was 79.41% lower at the wrist while using the automated injection system. Differences in whole-body radiation exposure were not significant between injection methods (<i>P</i> < 0.56). The overall radiation dose per injection at the wrist and in the whole body and mean residual activity after injection were noticeably lower with the automated system (<i>P</i> < 0.01), with mean residual activity decreasing by 73.58%. <b>Conclusion:</b> The overall radiation exposure for nuclear medicine personnel was significantly decreased when administering <sup>18</sup>F-FDG via an automated injection system.</p>","PeriodicalId":16548,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.124.269103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We evaluated occupational radiation exposure associated with 18F-FDG injection using a traditional manual approach versus an automated injection system. Methods: Wrist and whole-body radiation exposure of nuclear medicine personnel using a manual injection method versus an automated injection system for 18F-FDG administration were assessed using electronic personal dosimeters. Radiation exposure while configuring both systems was also evaluated. The dose administered met the requirements of the "as low as reasonably achievable" principle. Radiation exposure during initial setup and dose administration, residual activity, dose accuracy, presence of contamination, and frequency of extravasation were compared between methods. Results: Compared with the traditional manual method, use of the automated injection system resulted in significantly lower mean radiation exposure to medical physicists' wrists (P < 0.01). Radiation exposure was 79.41% lower at the wrist while using the automated injection system. Differences in whole-body radiation exposure were not significant between injection methods (P < 0.56). The overall radiation dose per injection at the wrist and in the whole body and mean residual activity after injection were noticeably lower with the automated system (P < 0.01), with mean residual activity decreasing by 73.58%. Conclusion: The overall radiation exposure for nuclear medicine personnel was significantly decreased when administering 18F-FDG via an automated injection system.

比较使用传统注射方法和自动注射系统的18F-FDG注射过程的职业暴露。
我们评估了职业性辐射暴露与18F-FDG注射相关,使用传统的手动方法与自动注射系统。方法:采用电子个人剂量计评估核医学人员使用手动注射方法和自动注射系统进行18F-FDG给药的手腕和全身辐射暴露情况。同时还评估了配置这两个系统时的辐射暴露。所施用的剂量符合“尽可能低”原则的要求。在初始设置和剂量给药期间的辐射暴露,残留活性,剂量准确性,污染的存在和外渗频率进行了比较。结果:与传统手工方法相比,使用自动注射系统可显著降低医学物理学家手腕的平均辐射暴露量(P < 0.01)。使用自动注射系统时,手腕处的辐射暴露降低了79.41%。注射方式之间全身辐射暴露差异无统计学意义(P < 0.56)。自动化系统显著降低了腕部和全身每次注射总辐射剂量和注射后平均残留活度(P < 0.01),平均残留活度降低了73.58%。结论:通过自动注射系统给药可显著降低核医学人员的总辐射暴露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of nuclear medicine technology
Journal of nuclear medicine technology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信