PDF《冠状动脉介入诊疗过程中不同悬吊防护屏 位置对操作者所受剂...》

・辐射剂量・ 冠状动脉介入诊疗过程中不同悬吊防护屏 位置对操作者所受剂量的影响 王智廷 郑翔 叶虹 闻彩云 黄伟剑 曹国全

325000 温州医科大学附属第一医院心内科(王智廷、 郑翔、 叶虹、 黄伟剑),放射影像 科(闻彩云、 曹国全) 通信作者:曹国全,Email:122257935@ qq.

com DOI:10?

3760 / cma. j. issn. 0254?5098? 2017? 12?

013 【摘要】 目的 探讨冠状动脉介入诊疗过程中悬吊防护屏位置的变化对第

1 及第

2 术者位置 辐射剂量的影响. 方法 采用冠状动脉造影过程中常用的足位、 右足位、 头位、 左足位、 左侧位、 左头位、 右侧位

7 个体位,经桡动脉途径对标准仿真人模体进行曝光采集. 测量高度取

125 及155 cm,在不同采集体位时,用剂量仪测量不同悬吊防护屏位置时第

1 及第

2 术者位置的体表入射 剂量率,并比较其是否存在差异. 结果 对于第

1 术者只在左足位测得有效剂量率值,且悬吊防护 屏靠近患者时的体表入射剂量率高于靠近术者时(t125 = 46? 9, t155 = 4? 1,P < 0? 05);

第2术者在足 位、 右足位、 左侧位、 右侧位悬吊防护屏靠近术者时的体表入射剂量率高于靠近患者时(t125 = 11?

9、 24?

4、 11?

2、 2? 7, t155 = 16?

1、 2?

8、 14?

4、 28? 8,P < 0? 05);

在头位、 左足位、 左头位时吊防护 屏靠近术者时的体表入射剂量率低于靠近患者时(t125 = - 4?

3、 - 2?

4、 - 80? 4, t155 = - 10?

2、 - 6?

7、 - 152? 6,P < 0? 05). 结论 冠状动脉介入诊疗过程中悬吊防护屏位置的变化能引起操作者 所受剂量的改变,但是不同体位时悬吊防护屏位置变化所引起的操作者所受剂量的变化趋势也不 同,因此在实际操作过程中应针对不同投照体位合理应用悬吊防护屏,以有效减少操作者所受 剂量. 【关键词】 冠状动脉;

介入诊疗;

体表入射剂量率;

悬吊防护屏;

辐射防护 The influence of different ceiling?mounted shield positions on operators′ radiation dose in percutaneous coronary intervention Wang Zhiting, Zheng Xiang, Ye Hong, Wen Caiyun, Huang Weijian, Cao Guoquan Department of Cardiology(Wang ZT, Zheng X, Ye H, Huang WJ), Department of Radiology(Wen CY, Cao GQ), First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou 325000, China Corresponding author: Cao Guoquan, Email: 122257935@ qq. com 【Abstract】 Objective To discuss the influence of the change in ceiling?mounted shield positions on the radiation doses to the first and second operators during percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods In this study, the entrance surface dose (ESD) rates were measured for the first and second operators at

125 cm and

155 cm height on different ceiling?mounted shield positions separately through transradial approach. Measurements were repeated

20 times for each position and T test was used for statistical analysis of dose rate arithmetic mean values. Results For the first operator, the effective dose values were obtained only on left foot position. The ESD rate values at ceiling?mounted shield position close to patient were higher than that close to operators (t125 = 46. 9, t155 = 4. 1, P < 0. 05). For the second operator, the ESD rate values on his foot position, right foot position, left anterior oblique position and right anterior oblique position at ceiling?mounted shield position close to the operator, were higher than that close to the patient separately (t125 = 11. 9, 24. 4, 11. 2, 2. 7, t155 = 16. 1, 2. 8, 14. 4, 28. 8, P