{"title":"Occupational radiation exposure and radiation protection practices in interventional radiology and cardiology: A multicenter study in France.","authors":"Cyril Duverger, Djamel Dabli, Jean-Paul Beregi, Guillaume Cayla, Julien Frandon, Joël Greffier","doi":"10.1016/j.diii.2026.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to assess occupational radiation exposure and radiation protection practices among physicians performing interventional radiology and cardiology procedures in France.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective multicenter study included 138 radiologists and 106 cardiologists from 17 French centers between 2019 and 2021. Data regarding passive dosimetry monitoring, radiation protection training, and availability and use of collective and personal protective equipment were collected. Whole-body, extremity, and eye lens dosimetry results were analyzed according to specialty and activity. Only physicians reporting systematic or frequent dosimeter use were included in the quantitative dosimetry analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Whole-body dosimeters were available for all physicians, whereas extremity and eye lens dosimeters were less often available, particularly in radiology (67% and 27%, respectively). Systematic or frequent dosimeter use was lower for extremity and eye lens monitoring than for whole-body monitoring. Median annual whole-body effective doses remained low in both radiology and cardiology (0.36 and 0.61 mSv/year, respectively), and no physician exceeded the 6 mSv/year threshold corresponding to category B workers. Extremity and eye lens exposures were substantially higher, particularly in vascular radiology and coronary/valvular cardiology. Four out of 244 physicians (1.6%) exceeded the annual eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv/year. Despite broad availability of eye protection equipment, non-use remained frequent among radiologists (35%). Radiation protection training remained heterogeneous across specialties and activities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Occupational radiation exposure remained globally low for whole-body exposure but remained substantial for extremities and especially the eye lens. Persistent shortcomings in dosimeter compliance and eye protection use emphasize the need to reinforce radiation protection practices in high-exposure interventional specialties.</p>","PeriodicalId":48656,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2026.06.006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess occupational radiation exposure and radiation protection practices among physicians performing interventional radiology and cardiology procedures in France.
Materials and methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 138 radiologists and 106 cardiologists from 17 French centers between 2019 and 2021. Data regarding passive dosimetry monitoring, radiation protection training, and availability and use of collective and personal protective equipment were collected. Whole-body, extremity, and eye lens dosimetry results were analyzed according to specialty and activity. Only physicians reporting systematic or frequent dosimeter use were included in the quantitative dosimetry analysis.
Results: Whole-body dosimeters were available for all physicians, whereas extremity and eye lens dosimeters were less often available, particularly in radiology (67% and 27%, respectively). Systematic or frequent dosimeter use was lower for extremity and eye lens monitoring than for whole-body monitoring. Median annual whole-body effective doses remained low in both radiology and cardiology (0.36 and 0.61 mSv/year, respectively), and no physician exceeded the 6 mSv/year threshold corresponding to category B workers. Extremity and eye lens exposures were substantially higher, particularly in vascular radiology and coronary/valvular cardiology. Four out of 244 physicians (1.6%) exceeded the annual eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv/year. Despite broad availability of eye protection equipment, non-use remained frequent among radiologists (35%). Radiation protection training remained heterogeneous across specialties and activities.
Conclusion: Occupational radiation exposure remained globally low for whole-body exposure but remained substantial for extremities and especially the eye lens. Persistent shortcomings in dosimeter compliance and eye protection use emphasize the need to reinforce radiation protection practices in high-exposure interventional specialties.
期刊介绍：
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging accepts publications originating from any part of the world based only on their scientific merit. The Journal focuses on illustrated articles with great iconographic topics and aims at aiding sharpening clinical decision-making skills as well as following high research topics. All articles are published in English.
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging publishes editorials, technical notes, letters, original and review articles on abdominal, breast, cancer, cardiac, emergency, forensic medicine, head and neck, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, interventional, obstetric, pediatric, thoracic and vascular imaging, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, as well as contrast material, computer developments, health policies and practice, and medical physics relevant to imaging.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
