Next Article in Journal
Experiences of People Living with Parkinson’s Disease in Care Homes: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Nurse-Led Approaches to Lowering Alcohol Use among Adolescents: Study Findings
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Patient Experience in Relation to Hospital Nursing Care
Previous Article in Special Issue
Developing an Educational Program for Ultrasound Hip Screening during Newborn and Infant Home Visits: A Protocol Paper
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nursing Reports
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/nursrep14010032
nursrep-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study

by
Tomoko Kuriyama
1,
Takashi Moritake
2,*,
Koichi Nakagami
3,
Koichi Morota
4,
Go Hitomi
5 and
Hiroko Kitamura
6
1
Department of Occupational and Community Health Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu 807-8555, Japan
2
Department of Radiation Regulatory Science Research, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institute for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
3
Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu 807-8556, Japan
4
Department of Radiology, Shinkomonji Hospital, Kitakyushu 800-0057, Japan
5
Department of Radiological Technology, Kawasaki Medical School Hospital, Kurashiki 701-0192, Japan
6
Occupational Health Training Center, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu 807-8555, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14(1), 413-427; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nursrep14010032
Submission received: 11 January 2024 / Revised: 5 February 2024 / Accepted: 7 February 2024 / Published: 10 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Nursing Care)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s (ICRP) reduction in the radiation dose threshold for cataracts, evaluating and preventing radiation exposure to the lens of the eye among interventional radiology (IR) staff have become urgent tasks. In this study, we focused on differences in lens-equivalent dose (HT Lens) to which IR nurses in three hospitals were exposed and aimed to identify factors underlying these differences. According to analyses of time-, distance-, and shielding-related factors, the magnitude of the HT Lens dose to which IR nurses were exposed could be explained not by time or shielding but by the distance between the X-ray exposure field and the location of the IR nurse. This distance tended to be shorter in hospitals with fewer staff. The most effective means of reducing the exposure of the lenses of IR nurses’ eyes to radiation is to position them at least two meters from the radiation source during angiography procedures. However, some hospitals must provide IR departments with comparatively few staff. In work environments where it is infeasible to reduce exposure by increasing distance, interventions to reduce time by managing working practices and investment in shielding equipment are also important. This study was not registered.

1. Introduction

Interventional Radiology (IR), a diagnostic and treatment technique using fluoroscopy, was proposed by Margulis [1], and Wallace reported its application to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with neoplastic diseases [2]. Recent advances in X-ray-fluoroscopy-unit performance and the development of new tools and devices mean that the applicatory range of IR is now expanding to many body parts, such as those addressed in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular fields. However, its nature as an indirect procedure in which a catheter is guided to the lesion site under fluoroscopic examination using X-rays entails an unavoidable risk of radiation exposure. In particularly difficult treatments, radiation exposure may continue for a long time, as a result of which patients are at risk of developing skin damage such as hair loss and ulceration [3,4,5,6,7]. In addition, some of the radiation directed at the patient changes its direction within the patient’s body, causing medical staff to be exposed to scattered X-rays. Although the exposure of medical staff is substantially lower than that of patients, their cumulative dose is increased by repeated radiological work. To date, there have been no reported cases of skin cancer in medical staff exposed to such low doses of scattered X-rays. However, since carcinogenesis is considered a stochastic effect with no threshold dose, it cannot be reliably stated that there is no risk.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies workers involved in IR in medical settings as among “those exposed to highly non-uniform radiation fields in which the lens of the eye may be preferentially exposed”, and for whom it is therefore important to prevent radiation exposure to the lens of the eye [8]. When the eye’s lens is exposed to radiation, opacity appears, and this lens opacity progresses to the point of visual impairment, called a cataract [9,10]. There are three predominant forms of cataracts depending on the location of the cataract: a cortical cataract, a nuclear cataract, and a posterior subcapsular cataract (PSC) [11]. A PSC is considered a characteristic finding of radiation cataracts [12,13,14]. Cataracts may also occur due to age [15], UV exposure [16,17,18,19], corticosteroid medication [20,21], and diabetes mellitus [22]. In six countries where differences in healthcare systems may lead to differences in eye exposure levels, the Retrospective Evaluation of Lens Injuries and Dose (RELID) study was conducted under the auspices of the IAEA in 2008, finding that approximately 40–50% of interventionists and 20–40% of technicians or nurses had posterior subcapsular opacities consistent with injuries derived from exposure to ionizing radiation [23,24,25,26,27]. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) issued a recommendation in 2011 to reduce the threshold dose for cataracts from 8 Gy to 500 mGy [14]. Since then, many countries have lowered their lens-equivalent dose limits, and in April 2021, Japan also reduced this limit from 150 mSv to 20 mSv per year [28].
Among IR staff, physicians have the highest radiation exposure levels, with the exposure level for nurses being reportedly less than a third of that of physicians [29,30,31,32]. Some studies examining the causes of radiation exposure among IR nurses and its background factors have found that these causes are not the same as those of physicians [33] and that there was no correlation between the doses administered to the primary operator and those applied to IR nurses providing direct or indirect assistance [31], pointing out that the different roles of physicians and nurses working in IR may affect the radiation dose [31]. However, an analysis that depends solely on simple comparisons with physicians at a single site is not sufficient. In this study, we selected three Japanese hospitals of different sizes and compared the levels of exposure of the lens the eye to radiation among IR nurses working in these institutions. We also analyzed factors that might affect the dose received by IR nurses’ eye lenses from the perspective of the three relevant concepts of time, distance, and shielding in order to keep the radiation dose administered to medical professionals as low as reasonably achievable [34,35].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This was a quantitative observational study of the lens-equivalent doses (HT Lens) to which IR nurses were exposed.

2.2. Study Sites and Data Gathered

In Japan, hospitals with 200 or more beds account for over 60% of hospitals with angiography equipment [36]. For this study, we selected three designated emergency hospitals, all with over 200 beds but of different functionalities and sizes (Hospital A, with 678 beds; Hospital B, with 1182; and Hospital C, with 214). Hospitals A and B were both university hospitals, and Hospital C was a private hospital.
The study period was from January 2018 to March 2021. We analyzed a total of 3371 consecutive cases (Hospital A, n = 900; Hospital B, n = 1979; Hospital C, n = 492) during a one-year period set individually by each hospital (Hospital A, April 2020–March 2021; Hospital B, February 2020–January 2021; Hospital C, January 2018–December 2018).
This study included 88 IR nurses (Hospital A, n = 31; Hospital B, n = 49; Hospital C, n = 8), excluding those for whom individual radiation dose information was not reported for 1 month or more for reasons such as maternity leave, and the total lens-equivalent dose (HT Lens total) for each participant was calculated. Regarding the concepts of time, distance, and shielding, for time, we compiled the total number of cases for which each IR nurse had been responsible during the year (Ctotal); the number of these cases in which IR had been therapeutically conducted, therefore requiring higher X-ray doses than IR for diagnostic purposes (Ctherapeutic); total fluoroscopy time (FTtotal); and total air kerma-area product (PKA total). As distance-related data, we compiled information on the equipment layout in the angiography rooms used and the locations of the IR nurses. For shielding, we gathered information on the use of ceiling-suspended lead shields (CSS; Figure 1a) and rolling lead shields (RS; Figure 1b) fitted in the angiography room, which may affect the HT Lens total of IR nurses. We also recorded the number of physicians and nurses who were employed in the treatment of each IR patient. These numbers included standby staff.

2.3. Lens-Equivalent Dose Measurements

IR nurses wore protective lead aprons to which they attached two individual dosimeters, one to the inside of the lead apron and another to the outside at the top of the collar. The individual dosimeters used at Hospitals A and B were radio-photoluminescence dosimeters (Chiyoda Technol Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and those used at Hospital C were optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (Nagase-Landauer, Ltd., Tsukuba, Japan). The 10 mm individual dose equivalent [Hp (10)] measured by the individual dosimeter on the outside of the lead apron was calculated as the HT Lens. The integrated value for each month was measured at a detection threshold of 0.05 mSv and rounded up or down, and values of ≥0.1 mSv were reported in 0.1 mSv increments. All values below 0.05 mSv were reported as 0 mSv.

2.4. Mean Distance between Station and X-ray Irradiation Field

For each angiography room, we investigated the size of the room, its equipment layout, and the distance between the center of rotation of the C-arm on the angiography unit (regarded as the X-ray irradiation field) and the position where the IR nurse was stationed for the longest time, for example, when completing nursing records. The weighted mean distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the IR nurse’s station (Dmean) was calculated for each IR nurse using Equation (1).
Dmean (cm) = Σ(Di × Ci/Ctotal)
Here, Di is the distance (cm) between the X-ray irradiation field and the station in Roomi, Ci is the number of cases for which an IR nurse was responsible in Roomi during the year, and Ctotal is the total number of cases for which an IR nurse was responsible.

2.5. Lens-Equivalent Dose Rate

The HT Lens of IR nurses is directly affected by the number of times they are engaged in IR and for how long. To eliminate this effect, we evaluated the lens-equivalent dose ratio (HTRLens) for each IR nurse using Equation (2).
HTRLens (μSv/h) = HT Lens total/FTtotal
FTtotal is the total fluoroscopy time for the cases for which an IR nurse was responsible during the year.

2.6. Distance between the X-ray Irradiation Field and the Station and Its Relationship with IR Staff Numbers

We calculated the mean total number of physicians and IR nurses (IR staff) other than clinical radiologists who worked on one IR procedure (Smean) for each IR nurse using Equation (3).
Smean = Stotal/Ctotal
Stotal is the total number of IR staff who worked on all the cases for which an IR nurse was responsible during the year. We then analyzed the association between Smean and Dmean.

2.7. IR Staffing Levels

We categorized the number of physicians and IR nurses who worked on one IR procedure as the following four categories: 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 members of staff.

2.8. Statistical Methods

We analyzed the relationship between the parameters HT Lens total, Ctotal, Ctherapeutic, FTtotal, and PKA total for IR nurses and the various factors by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ). Multiple comparisons of factors between the different hospitals were carried out by conducting a Kruskal–Wallis test followed by a Mann–Whitney U test (Bonferroni-adjusted for double testing). To analyze the correlation between Smean and Dmean, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) were calculated. Correlation coefficient values r or ρ less than 0.4 represent a weak correlation, values ranging from 0.4 to 0.69 represent a moderate correlation, and values ranging from 0.70 to 0.99 represent a strong correlation [37,38]. Multiple comparisons of the total numbers of physicians and IR nurses between the different hospitals were carried out by conducting a Kruskal–Wallis test followed by a Mann–Whitney U test (Bonferroni-adjusted for double testing). SPSS Ver. 25 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and OriginLabs OriginPro2023 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA) were used for analysis, and all p-values were two-tailed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of HT Lens total among Hospitals

At Hospital C, none of the IR nurses had an HT Lens total of 0 mSv, but at both Hospitals A and B, 61% of IR nurses had an HT Lens total of 0 mSv. Moreover, IR nurses at Hospital C had a higher mean HT Lens total than those at Hospitals A and B (Table 1). An analysis restricted to only those nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥ 0.1 mSv showed that the HT Lens total values differed significantly among the hospitals (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.01). According to the results of multiple comparison testing, HT Lens total was significantly higher at Hospital C than at Hospitals A and B (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.05; Table 1). No nurses at any of the three hospitals exceeded the lens-equivalent dose limit (20 mSv/year).

3.2. Associations between HT Lens total and Time-Related Factors

Figure 2 shows a scatter plot matrix of the associations between HT Lens total, Ctotal, Ctherapeutic, FTtotal, and PKA total. An analysis of how the four time-related parameters of Ctotal, Ctherapeutic, FTtotal, and PKA total were associated with each other at each hospital showed a moderate to strong correlation between every combination (0.51 ≤ ρA/B/C ≤ 0.97). Similarly, the results of an analysis of all three hospitals together showed strong correlations among three parameters, namely, Ctotal, Ctherapeutic, and FTtotal (0.86 ≤ ρtotal ≤ 0.96); however, they showed weak to moderate correlations between PKA total and these three parameters (0.23 ≤ ρtotal ≤ 0.56). In the analysis of all three hospitals together, HT Lens total was weakly to moderately correlated with all time-related parameters (0.19 ≤ ρtotal ≤ 0.51), and in an analysis of Hospital A alone, these correlations were particularly strong (0.75 ≤ ρA ≤ 0.91).

3.3. Equipment of Angiography Rooms with Radiation Shields

In terms of shielding, RSs were installed in the angiography rooms in Hospital B (Table 2), and the IR nurses conducted their tasks while stationed behind them (Figure 3). At Hospital A, RSs were not installed in Room A-I and Room A-III (Table 2); in these two rooms, the IR nurse stood outside at a distance from the X-ray irradiation field and carried out most of their tasks in a position in which they were behind the door of the angiography room (Figure 3). At Hospital C, an RS was not installed in Room C-I, but most of the patients underwent procedures in Room C-II, which was fitted with an RS (Table 2). CSSs were fitted in all the rooms of all the hospitals and were properly used (Table 2).

3.4. Association between HT Lens total and X-ray Irradiation Field–Station Distance

To identify factors that may have contributed to the differences in the HT Lens total values between hospitals, we plotted the relationship between the HTRLens, which eliminates the effect of time from HT Lens total, and Dmean, and we obtained a good fit (Figure 4) using Equation (4).
HTRLens (μSv/h) = 3.81 × 106 × {Dmean (cm)}−2 − 15.5

3.5. Association between X-ray Irradiation Field–Station Distance and Number of IR Staff

To explore the reasons underlying the differences in Dmean, we analyzed its association with Smean and identified a strong positive correlation between the two (r = 0.89, ρ = 0.87, p < 0.01; Figure 5).

3.6. Number of IR Staff and IR Staffing Levels

To explore the reasons for the underlying differences in Smean, we investigated the number of IR staff who worked on one IR procedure. Of the total of 3371 cases, 3118 cases were analyzed, wherein the number of both physicians and nurses were available; the number of IR staff differed significantly among the hospitals (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.01; Table 3). According to the results of multiple comparison testing, the number of IR staff was significantly smaller at Hospital C than at Hospitals A and B (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.01; Table 3). The most common staff compositions in each hospital were two physicians and two IR nurses at Hospital A, two physicians and one IR nurse at Hospital B, and one physician and one IR nurse at Hospital C (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

From the perspective of occupational health and safety, risk areas (in this study, radiation-controlled areas) and areas where people are present must be kept completely separate, either through distancing or by making ingress impossible [39]. For medical staff involved in IR, however, working in radiation-controlled areas is unavoidable, and as the angiography room contains localized spots with high air dose rates, it is necessary to assess the exposure statuses of IR nurses and optimize their protection against radiation even though their exposure doses are usually lower than those of doctors and never exceed the dose limit. In the course of this study, we noticed that the yearly HT Lens total of IR nurses differed among the investigated hospitals, and in light of the possibility that this might be due to hospital-specific factors, we investigated the factors potentially affecting the HT Lens total of IR nurses based on the three concepts of time, distance, and shielding.
An analysis of all 88 IR nurses, including those for whom the HT Lens total was 0 mSv, showed that the highest HT Lens total (mean 2.9 mSv) for IR nurses was at Hospital C. This was also true when nurses with an HT Lens total of 0 mSv were excluded, and the mean value at Hospital C was significantly higher than the same values at Hospitals A and B (Table 1). The correlation analyses showed moderate to strong positive correlations between combinations of the four time-related parameters of Ctotal, Ctherapeutic, FTtotal, and PKA total (0.51 ≤ ρA/B/C ≤ 0.97, Figure 2), which can be described as a valid result. At Hospital A, HT Lens total was strongly positively correlated with the four time-related factors (0.75 ≤ ρA ≤ 0.91, Figure 2), and it may be possible to estimate the HT Lens total of IR nurses by combining the values of the time-related parameters. Several studies have reported that FT and PKA, which are displayed on the angiography unit as a proxy for patient exposure dose, are generally positively correlated with the radiation dose delivered to the lens of the eye among medical staff [40,41,42,43], but these studies concerned the radiation dose delivered to the lens of the eye among physicians. One study also reported that because IR nurses move around the room, the radiation dose delivered to the lens of the eye among these nurses is not significantly associated with FT or PKA [43]. Our study results also indicate that although the mean values of the four time-related factors at Hospital C were markedly lower than those at Hospitals A and B, HT Lens total was statistically significantly higher at Hospital C than at the other two hospitals (Table 1). This high value of HT Lens total at Hospital C cannot be explained solely in terms of time-related factors, suggesting that hospital-specific factors may be involved.
CSSs are mainly effective as protection for physicians. They were installed in all angiography rooms and properly used, with no evident differences among hospitals (Table 2). RSs, however, are mainly effective as protection for IR nurses. As shown in Figure 3, RSs were not installed in two rooms of Hospital A (Rooms A-I and A-III), where the nurse was positioned outside the door, and in one room of Hospital C (Room C-I), where the IR nurse was positioned immediately behind and to the right of the physician. Although we did not carry out a quantitative investigation of the effect of shielding factors on HT Lens total, because the IR nurse was positioned outside the door of Rooms A-I and A-III, the shielding effect would probably have been at least equivalent to that of an RS, and in Room C-I, the physician’s trunk should also have provided a shielding effect. In addition, at Hospital C, approximately two-thirds of the procedures on which IR nurses worked were conducted in Room C-II, which was equipped with an RS (Table 2). Thus, it at least cannot be said with certainty that inadequate shielding at Hospital C was the reason for its higher HT Lens total, suggesting that other factors may have been involved. Because we estimated the HT Lens values of IR nurses from the values recorded by individual dosimeters attached to the tops of their collars on the outside of their lead aprons, the use or lack thereof of lead protective glasses did not affect HT Lens total.
Distance is a valuable tool for providing radiological protection. Radiation doses decrease with the square of the distance between the radiation source and the operator (according to the inverse-square law). Thus, the dose decreases rapidly when a person moves away from an X-ray source [44]. Because IR nurses move around the angiography room during procedures, it is difficult to accurately measure the distance between them and the patient or X-ray tube [45]. In this study, when we analyzed the association between Dmean and HTRLens for each IR nurse on the assumption that their position in each IR room was the location in which they spent the most time, we found that the Dmean at Hospital C was much shorter compared to that at Hospitals A and B, and the HTRLens of IR nurses fit well with the inverse square of the distance (Figure 4). This suggests that distance was the main factor underlying the large difference in HT Lens total among the three hospitals in this study. As shown in Figure 4, the slope of the regression curve flattened out when Dmean exceeded 2 m, indicating that positioning IR nurses at least 2 m from an X-ray irradiation field is an efficient means of reducing HTRLens.
What might be the reason for the difference in Dmean among the three hospitals? We first considered the physical size of the angiography rooms, but as shown in Table 2, the floor space did not considerably differ among the three hospitals. In fact, the two angiography rooms at Hospital C were more spacious than those at Hospitals A and B, so the shorter Dmean at Hospital C was not because its rooms were smaller. We then looked at the association between Dmean and Smean, and we found a strong positive correlation between these two parameters (Figure 5), indicating that when fewer IR staff were present, IR nurses tended to work at a closer distance to the X-ray irradiation field. A further investigation of the number of IR staff working on one procedure found that the mean quantities of IR staff were 4.1, 3.5, and 2.3 at Hospitals A, B, and C, respectively (Table 3), and that treatment was usually carried out by two physicians at Hospitals A and B, but at Hospital C, usually only one physician was responsible (Figure 6). Because training residents and medical students is a major part of the work of university hospitals such as Hospitals A and B, the inclusion of residents and others acting as assistants means that the number of physicians involved in treatment tends to be relatively higher. At Hospital C, in which most procedures were conducted by a single physician, there was greater pressure on IR nurses to act as assistants for procedures performed by physicians, and as a result, these IR nurses spent a longer time positioned right next to the physician. IR nurses, including trainee nurses, act as circulating nurses (responsible for tests, preparing the treatment environment, assisting the patient, and recording information) and as scrub nurses (directly assisting the physician and readying equipment) during procedures, and as these tasks directly affect where IR nurses are stationed in the angiography room, they may also influence their exposure doses [46,47,48]. Although this study did not investigate the specific roles played by IR nurses during procedures, it can be conjectured that the roles of IR nurses varied among the participating hospitals.
Unlike physicians and radiologic technicians, who have control over radiation emissions [49], IR nurses may not be aware that their bodies are being exposed and have difficulty taking preventive action against anticipated exposure. Under these circumstances, reducing their exposure cannot depend solely on how aware individual IR nurses are of radiation protection, nor on the wearing of individual protective equipment, which should be the final option [50]. The primary task in this regard is to re-evaluate the stationing of IR nurses and, if possible, instruct them to stand at a distance of at least 2 m from the X-ray irradiation field. However, depending on the circumstances of the hospital, it may be necessary to conduct IR procedures with a small number of staff. In this case, rather than depending entirely on instructing individual IR nurses on how to act, interventions will be required from both the time perspective, e.g., managing working practices so as not to depend too much on a limited number of IR nurses, and from the shielding perspective in terms of facilities investment for installing appropriate shielding equipment such as RSs and CSSs.
This study has several limitations. Although we analyzed time, distance, and shielding as important factors affecting the exposure doses delivered to IR nurses, other factors are also known to influence these doses, including the difficulty of a procedure, the X-ray collimation range, changes in X-ray beam direction, and differences in patient physique [51,52]. Further studies of these factors are required.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we found that the exposure dose delivered to the lens of the eye among IR nurses in one hospital was high, although the values of the four time-related factors Ctotal, Ctherapeutic, Ftotal, and PKA total, on which the dose delivered to the lens of the eye depends, were rather low. This was because of a distance-related factor, namely, the distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the location of the nurse. When the circumstances of a hospital dictate that IR procedures must be conducted by a small group of staff, particularly when this group comprises just one physician and one IR nurse, the distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the nurse’s location tends to be substantially shorter. In this case, the nurse should be instructed to stand at least 2 m away from the X-ray irradiation field if possible, and every effort should be made to arrange shift patterns so as not to depend too much on a limited number of IR nurses and to ensure the appropriate use of protective equipment such as RSs and CSSs. This study also showed that the lens equivalent dose for IR nurses was well below the dose limit, so wearing lead protective glasses is not mandatory. However, monitoring the lens dose delivered outside the lead apron is necessary to ensure the dose is zero or very low.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.M., T.K. and T.M.; Methodology, K.M., T.K. and T.M.; Validation, T.K. and T.M.; Investigation, K.N., K.M. and G.H.; Resources, K.N., K.M. and G.H.; Data Curation, T.K.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, T.K.; Writing—Review and Editing, T.M. and H.K.; Visualization, T.K.; Supervision, T.M. and H.K.; Project Administration, T.M.; Funding Acquisition, T.K., T.M. and H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI, given to T.M. under grant number 18H03376; from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare given to T.M. under grant number 180501-1; and from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare given to H.K., T.M. and T.K. under grant number 210501-01.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health (reference number: R1-054 approved on 8 June 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

The Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health confirmed that data had been anonymized and waived the requirement for informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data are contained within the article.

Public Involvement Statement

There was no public involvement in any aspect of this research.

Guidelines and Standards Statement

This manuscript was drafted against the STROBE guidelines for a cross-sectional study.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the late Naoki Kunugita of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health for his empathetic supervision. We also thank Keisuke Nagamoto and Satoru Matsuzaki for their advice.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Margulis, A.R. Interventional diagnostic radiology-a new subspeciality. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1967, 99, 763–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wallace, S. Interventional radiology. Cancer 1976, 37, 517–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Balter, S.; Hopewell, J.W.; Miller, D.L.; Wagner, L.K.; Zelefsky, M.J. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: A review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology 2010, 254, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Huda, W.; Peters, K.R. Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neuroradiologically guided embolization procedure. Radiology 1994, 193, 642–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Krasovec, M.; Trüeb, R.M. Temporary Roentgen epilation after embolization of a cerebral arteriovenous malformation. Hautarzt 1998, 49, 307–309. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mooney, R.B.; McKinstry, C.S.; Kamel, H.A. Absorbed dose and deterministic effects to patients from interventional neuroradiology. Br. J. Radiol. 2000, 73, 745–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Corrigall, R.S.; Martin, C.J.; Scott, I. Observations of tissue reactions following neuroradiology interventional procedures. J. Radiol. Prot. 2020, 40, N9–N15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Carinou, E. IAEA Tec Doc-1731 ‘Implications for Occupational Radiation Protection of the New Dose Limit for the Lens of the Eye’. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2016, 171, 554–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. van Heyningen, R. What happens to the human lens in cataract. Sci. Am. 1975, 233, 70–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Merriam, G.R., Jr. A clinical study of radiation cataracts. Trans Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1956, 54, 611–653. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kuszak, J.; Brown, H. Embryology and anatomy of the lens. In Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology: Basic Sciences; WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1994; pp. 82–96. [Google Scholar]
  12. Merriam, G.R., Jr.; Worgul, B.V. Experimental radiation cataract—Its clinical relevance. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 1983, 59, 372–392. [Google Scholar]
  13. Vañó, E.; González, L.; Beneytez, F.; Moreno, F. Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimized interventional radiology laboratories. Br. J. Radiol. 1998, 71, 728–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs—Threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann. ICRP 2012, 41, 1–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Asbell, P.A.; Dualan, I.; Mindel, J.; Brocks, D.; Ahmad, M.; Epstein, S. Age-related cataract. Lancet 2005, 365, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Miyashita, H.; Hatsusaka, N.; Shibuya, E.; Mita, N.; Yamazaki, M.; Shibata, T.; Ishida, H.; Ukai, Y.; Kubo, E.; Sasaki, H. Association between ultraviolet radiation exposure dose and cataract in Han people living in China and Taiwan: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215338. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hollows, F.; Moran, D. Cataract—The ultraviolet risk factor. Lancet 1981, 2, 1249–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wittenberg, S. Solar radiation and the eye: A review of knowledge relevant to eye care. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 1986, 63, 676–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Taylor, H.R. Ultraviolet radiation and the eye: An epidemiologic study. Trans Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1989, 87, 802–853. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fürst, C.; Smiley, W.K.; Ansell, B.M. Steroid cataract. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1966, 25, 364–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Urban, R.C., Jr.; Cotlier, E. Corticosteroid-induced cataracts. Surv. Ophthalmol. 1986, 31, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Obrosova, I.G.; Chung, S.S.; Kador, P.F. Diabetic cataracts: Mechanisms and management. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 2010, 26, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ciraj-Bjelac, O.; Rehani, M.M.; Sim, K.H.; Liew, H.B.; Vano, E.; Kleiman, N.J. Risk for radiation-induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern? Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2010, 76, 826–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ciraj-Bjelac, O.; Rehani, M.; Minamoto, A.; Sim, K.H.; Liew, H.B.; Vano, E. Radiation-induced eye lens changes and risk for cataract in interventional cardiology. Cardiology 2012, 123, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rehani, M.M.; Vano, E.; Ciraj-Bjelac, O.; Kleiman, N.J. Radiation and cataract. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2011, 147, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Vano, E.; Kleiman, N.J.; Duran, A.; Rehani, M.M.; Echeverri, D.; Cabrera, M. Radiation cataract risk in interventional cardiology personnel. Radiat. Res. 2010, 174, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vano, E.; Kleiman, N.J.; Duran, A.; Romano-Miller, M.; Rehani, M.M. Radiation-associated lens opacities in catheterization personnel: Results of a survey and direct assessments. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2013, 24, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Regarding the Revised Ionizing Radiation Hazard Prevention Regulations and Related Projects. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/roudoukijun/anzen/0000186714_00003.html (accessed on 18 September 2023). (In Japanese)
  29. Efstathopoulos, E.P.; Pantos, I.; Andreou, M.; Gkatzis, A.; Carinou, E.; Koukorava, C.; Kelekis, N.L.; Brountzos, E. Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. Br. J. Radiol. 2011, 84, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Principi, S.; Delgado Soler, C.; Ginjaume, M.; Beltran Vilagrasa, M.; Rovira Escutia, J.J.; Duch, M.A. Eye lens dose in interventional cardiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2015, 165, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sailer, A.M.; Schurink, G.W.; Bol, M.E.; de Haan, M.W.; van Zwam, W.H.; Wildberger, J.E.; Jeukens, C.R. Occupational radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2015, 38, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Gilligan, P.; Lynch, J.; Eder, H.; Maguire, S.; Fox, E.; Doyle, B.; Casserly, I.; McCann, H.; Foley, D. Assessment of clinical occupational dose reduction effect of a new interventional cardiology shield for radial access combined with a scatter reducing drape. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015, 86, 935–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chida, K.; Kaga, Y.; Haga, Y.; Kataoka, N.; Kumasaka, E.; Meguro, T.; Zuguchi, M. Occupational dose in interventional radiology procedures. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013, 200, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP 1991, 21, 1–201. [Google Scholar]
  35. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP 2007, 37, 1–332. [Google Scholar]
  36. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Hospital Bed Function Report Publication Data. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/open_data_00006.html (accessed on 30 November 2023). (In Japanese)
  37. Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chan, Y.H. Biostatistics 104: Correlational analysis. Singap. Med. J. 2003, 44, 614–619. [Google Scholar]
  39. Japan Industrial Safety & Health Association. Practical Work of Occupational Safety and Health Management System Risk Assessors in Accordance with the Guidelines of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 7th ed.; Japan Industrial Safety & Health Association: Tokyo, Japan, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  40. Krim, S.; Brodecki, M.; Carinou, E.; Donadille, L.; Jankowski, J.; Koukorava, C.; Dominiek, J.; Nikodemova, D.; Ruiz-Lopez, N.; Sans-Merce, M.; et al. Extremity doses of medical staff involved in interventional radiology and cardiology: Correlations and annual doses (hands and legs). Radiat. Meas. 2011, 46, 1223–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gracia-Ochoa, M.; Candela-Juan, C.; Vilar-Palop, J.; Ruiz Rodríguez, J.C.; Soriano Cruz, A.; Palma Copete, J.D.; Pujades Claumarchirant, M.C.; Llorca Domaica, N. Correlation between eye lens doses and over apron doses in interventional procedures. Phys. Med. 2020, 77, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Martin, C.J.; Magee, J.S. Assessment of eye and body dose for interventional radiologists, cardiologists, and other interventional staff. J. Radiol. Prot. 2013, 33, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ishii, H.; Chida, K.; Satsurai, K.; Haga, Y.; Kaga, Y.; Abe, M.; Inaba, Y.; Zuguchi, M. Occupational eye dose correlation with neck dose and patient-related quantities in interventional cardiology procedures. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 2022, 15, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection in cardiology. Ann. ICRP 2013, 42, 1–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. van der Merwe, B. Establishing ionising radiation safety culture during interventional cardiovascular procedures. Cardiovasc. J. Afr. 2021, 32, 271–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wilson-Stewart, K.; Hartel, G.; Fontanarosa, D. Occupational radiation exposure to the head is higher for scrub nurses than cardiologists during cardiac angiography. J. Adv. Nurs. 2019, 75, 2692–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sánchez, R.M.; Vano, E.; Fernández, J.M.; Pifarré, X.; Ordiales, J.M.; Rovira, J.J.; Carrera, F.; Goicolea, J.; Fernández-Ortiz, A. Occupational eye lens doses in interventional cardiology. A multicentric study. J. Radiol. Prot. 2016, 36, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Domienik, J.; Brodecki, M.; Rusicka, D. A study of the dose distribution in the region of the eye lens and extremities for staff working in interventional cardiology. Radiat. Meas. 2012, 47, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. National Institute of Radiological Sciences. Radiology for Nurses; Asakura Publishing Co., Ltd.: Tokyo, Japan, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Guidelines for Investigating Risks or Hazards. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/bukyoku/roudou/an-eihou/dl/060421-1f.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2023). (In Japanese)
  51. Vano, E.; Gonzalez, L.; Fernandez, J.M.; Prieto, C.; Guibelalde, E. Influence of patient thickness and operation modes on occupational and patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 2006, 118, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Vano, E.; Ubeda, C.; Leyton, F.; Miranda, P.; Gonzalez, L. Staff radiation doses in interventional cardiology: Correlation with patient exposure. Pediatr. Cardiol. 2009, 30, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nursrep 14 00032 g001
Figure 1. Lead lined radiation-shielding equipment installed in angiography rooms: (a) Ceiling-suspended lead shield (CSS) and (b) rolling lead shield (RS). The thickness of both is 0.5 mm Pb equivalent.
Figure 1. Lead lined radiation-shielding equipment installed in angiography rooms: (a) Ceiling-suspended lead shield (CSS) and (b) rolling lead shield (RS). The thickness of both is 0.5 mm Pb equivalent.
Nursrep 14 00032 g001
Nursrep 14 00032 g002
Figure 2. Relationships between the total lens-equivalent dose delivered to IR nurses and their total number of cases, total number of therapeutic IR cases, total air kerma-area product, and fluoroscopy time. The analyzed population comprised 39 nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv. The lower-left triangular matrix shows scatter plots, the squares on the diagonal show histograms, and the upper right triangular matrix shows the correlation coefficients. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients ρtotal, ρA, ρB, and ρC are those for all three hospitals together and those for individual analyses of Hospitals A, B, and C, respectively. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. Relationships between the total lens-equivalent dose delivered to IR nurses and their total number of cases, total number of therapeutic IR cases, total air kerma-area product, and fluoroscopy time. The analyzed population comprised 39 nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv. The lower-left triangular matrix shows scatter plots, the squares on the diagonal show histograms, and the upper right triangular matrix shows the correlation coefficients. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients ρtotal, ρA, ρB, and ρC are those for all three hospitals together and those for individual analyses of Hospitals A, B, and C, respectively. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Nursrep 14 00032 g002
Nursrep 14 00032 g003
Figure 3. Floor plans of angiography rooms. GW, lead-containing glass window between angiography room and control room; Phys, position of the first physician; RN, position of the IR nurse.
Figure 3. Floor plans of angiography rooms. GW, lead-containing glass window between angiography room and control room; Phys, position of the first physician; RN, position of the IR nurse.
Nursrep 14 00032 g003
Nursrep 14 00032 g004
Figure 4. Association between lens-equivalent dose rate and mean distance between X-ray irradiation field and position of the IR nurse. The analysis population comprised 39 nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv. The curve was fitted using the least-mean-squares method. Dmean, mean distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the position of the IR nurse (cm); HTRLens, lens-equivalent dose rate (μSv/h); r2, coefficient of determination.
Figure 4. Association between lens-equivalent dose rate and mean distance between X-ray irradiation field and position of the IR nurse. The analysis population comprised 39 nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv. The curve was fitted using the least-mean-squares method. Dmean, mean distance between the X-ray irradiation field and the position of the IR nurse (cm); HTRLens, lens-equivalent dose rate (μSv/h); r2, coefficient of determination.
Nursrep 14 00032 g004
Nursrep 14 00032 g005
Figure 5. Association between the mean number of IR staff and mean distance between X-ray irradiation field and position of IR nurse. The analysis population comprised 39 nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv. r, Pearson’s correlation coefficient; Smean, mean number of IR staff excluding radiologic technologists; ρ, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The line is the regression line.
Figure 5. Association between the mean number of IR staff and mean distance between X-ray irradiation field and position of IR nurse. The analysis population comprised 39 nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv. r, Pearson’s correlation coefficient; Smean, mean number of IR staff excluding radiologic technologists; ρ, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The line is the regression line.
Nursrep 14 00032 g005
Nursrep 14 00032 g006
Figure 6. The number of physicians and IR nurses working on IR procedures. The horizontal axis shows the number of physicians and IR nurses working on one IR procedure (1, 2, 3, or ≥4), and the vertical axis indicates the proportion. The numbers at the top of each bar are the numbers of cases.
Figure 6. The number of physicians and IR nurses working on IR procedures. The horizontal axis shows the number of physicians and IR nurses working on one IR procedure (1, 2, 3, or ≥4), and the vertical axis indicates the proportion. The numbers at the top of each bar are the numbers of cases.
Nursrep 14 00032 g006
Table 1. Interhospital comparisons of total lens-equivalent doses delivered to IR nurses and dose parameters.
Table 1. Interhospital comparisons of total lens-equivalent doses delivered to IR nurses and dose parameters.
HospitalABCInterhospital Comparisons ‡
HT Lens total Dose Category≥0.1 mSv and
0 mSv †		≥0.1 mSv0 mSv †≥0.1 mSv and
0 mSv †		≥0.1 mSv0 mSv †≥0.1 mSv and
0 mSv †		≥0.1 mSv0 mSv †p
(Kruskal–Wallis)		Multiple
Comparison
(Mann–Whitney U)
Number (%) of IR Nurses31 (100)12 (39)19 (61)49 (100)19 (39)30 (61)8 (100)8 (100)0 (0)
HT Lens total (mSv)
mean ± SD0.3 ± 0.50.8 ± 0.6N.A.0.3 ± 0.50.7 ± 0.6N.A.2.9 ± 1.52.9 ± 1.5N.A.<0.01A < C *
B < C **
median [IQR]0.0 [0.0–0.6]0.8 [0.4–0.9]N.A.0.0 [0.0–0.3]0.6 [0.2–0.8]N.A.3.1 [1.7–4.1]3.1 [1.7–4.1]N.A.
Ctotal
mean ± SD50.8 ± 59.2 114.1 ± 49.1 10.8 ± 7.749.4 ± 46.355.2 ± 55.845.7 ± 38.748.0 ± 13.748.0 ± 13.7N.A.<0.01B < A **
median [IQR]16.0 [6.5–107.5]123.0 [98.8–142.8]8.0 [4.5–15.0]44.0 [23.0–56.0]44.0 [36.0–54.5]37.0 [19.5–58.5]50.0 [43.8–58.3]50.0 [43.8–58.3]N.A.
Ctherapeutic
mean ± SD18.4 ± 22.843.2 ± 18.02.8 ± 3.428.5 ± 23.830.1 ± 24.927.5 ± 23.025.5 ± 8.325.5 ± 8.3N.A.<0.05B < A *
median [IQR]3.0 [1.0–38.0]50.0 [34.3–53.0]1.0 [1.0–3.0]23.0 [15.0–36.0]24.0 [18.5–33.0]22.0 [11.0–39.0]26.5 [21.0–32.5]26.5 [21.0–32.5]N.A.
PKA total (103 × Gycm2)
mean ± SD840.0 ± 1013.71895.5 ± 901.5173.1 ± 124.13327.3 ± 3418.94118.6 ± 4221.42826.1 ± 2675.6819.9 ± 177.8819.9 ± 177.8N.A.<0.01A < B *
C < B **
median [IQR]260.5
[102.5–1665.1]		2028.1 [1539.0–2390.2]115.7
[82.8–248.2]		2823.6
[1451.2–3786.0]		3364.7 [2298.7–3967.8]2435.3 [1157.2–3572.7]859.9 [732.1–939.2]859.9 [732.1–939.2]N.A.
FTtotal (hour)
mean ± SD30.7 ± 36.469.5 ± 30.66.1 ± 4.430.7 ± 31.342.2 ± 37.023.4 ± 24.520.1 ± 6.120.1 ± 6.1N.A.<0.01C < A**
median [IQR]8.4 [3.9–63.9]77.2 [60.1–83.0]4.4 [3.3–8.4]24.5 [16.7–36.8]32.7 [24.5–45.2]18.4 [8.0–30.2]21.1 [18.6–24.8]21.1 [18.6–24.8]N.A.
HT Lens: Lens-equivalent dose. The dose calculated for the lens of the eye, based on the physical dose delivered to the lens, was adjusted to account for the effectiveness of the type of radiation. HT Lens total: total lens-equivalent dose. Ctotal: total number of cases. Ctherapeutic: number of therapeutic IR cases. PKA: Air kerma-area product, i.e., the integral of air kerma across the entire X-ray beam emitted from an X-ray tube. PKA total: total air kerma-area product. FT: fluoroscopy time, i.e., moment at which the X-ray beam is emitted from the fluoroscopy system. FTtotal: total fluoroscopy time. SD: Standard deviation. IQR: Interquartile range [1st–3rd quartile]. N.A.: not available, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and † below detection threshold. ‡ Analysis was limited to nurses whose HT Lens total values were ≥0.1 mSv.
Table 2. Overview of angiography rooms, number of cases conducted during the study period, floor space, distance, and shield installation.
Table 2. Overview of angiography rooms, number of cases conducted during the study period, floor space, distance, and shield installation.
RoomAngiography SystemMain AreaNumber of CasesFloor Space (cm2)Distance * (cm)CSSRS
Hospital A
  A-IAlphenix INFX-8000V aCerebral 3574140500+−
  A-IIC vision PLUS bAbdominal1204225400++
  A-IIIArtis-Zee cCoronary4234225400 †/350 ‡+−
Hospital B
  B-IAlphenix INFX-8000V aThoracoabdominal 5614200220++
  B-IIAllura Xper FD20/10 dCerebral 5214200220++
  B-IIIAllura Clarity FD10/10 dCoronary8974200400++
Hospital C
  C-IBRANSIST Safire VC9 slender bCerebral1695016180+−
  C-IIBRANSIST Safire bCoronary3235016150++
* Distance from the center of rotation of the C-arm (X-ray irradiation field) to the location where the IR nurse recorded information (position of the IR nurse). † Brachial artery approach. ‡ Femoral artery approach a Canon Medical System Corporation, Askim, Sweden. b Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan. c Siemens Healthineers Solutions, Erlangen, Germany. d Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands. All devices a–d were under-tube types, with the X-ray tube situated under the table.
Table 3. Inter-hospital comparison of total number of physicians and IR nurses who worked on one IR procedure.
Table 3. Inter-hospital comparison of total number of physicians and IR nurses who worked on one IR procedure.
HospitalABCInterhospital Comparisons
Number of Cases † 8911836391p
(Kruskal–Wallis)		Multiple Comparison
(Mann–Whitney U)
mean ± SD4.1 ± 1.33.5 ± 1.12.3 ± 0.7<0.01B < A **
C < A **
C < B **
median [IQR]4 [3–5]3 [3,4]2 [2,2]
† Of the total 3371 cases, 3118 cases were analyzed, excluding the cases with deficiencies in either the number of physicians or IR nurses or both. SD: Standard deviation. IQR: Interquartile range [1st–3rd quartile]. ** p < 0.01
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuriyama, T.; Moritake, T.; Nakagami, K.; Morota, K.; Hitomi, G.; Kitamura, H. Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 413-427. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nursrep14010032

AMA Style

Kuriyama T, Moritake T, Nakagami K, Morota K, Hitomi G, Kitamura H. Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study. Nursing Reports. 2024; 14(1):413-427. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nursrep14010032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuriyama, Tomoko, Takashi Moritake, Koichi Nakagami, Koichi Morota, Go Hitomi, and Hiroko Kitamura. 2024. "Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study" Nursing Reports 14, no. 1: 413-427. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nursrep14010032

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop