Automated Injectors versus Manual Administration: A Comparative Analysis of Radiation Exposure Reduction in ¹⁸F-FDG Delivery

Abstract

Background Despite the presence of safety protocols, the manual manipulation of radiopharmaceuticals continues to pose a significant occupational radiation risk. Health care professionals in nuclear medicine are at risk of radiation exposure, particularly to their hands and eyes. Despite existing protective measures, manual handling of radiopharmaceuticals remains a significant source of occupational radiation.

Objective This study evaluates the effectiveness of automated injectors in reducing radiation exposure among health care workers during fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) administrations, compared with traditional manual injection methods.

Methods We assessed radiation exposure levels associated with manual versus automated ¹⁸F-FDG injection techniques using specialized dosimeters. Measurements focused on whole-body, extremity, and eye-lens radiation doses to evaluate the potential benefits of automation in minimizing exposure.

Results Findings reveal that automated injectors significantly reduce radiation exposure, with decreases of 97.97 and 98.96% in left- and right-hand extremity doses, respectively, 43.24% in eye-lens dose, and 91.66% in whole-body dose compared with manual methods.

Conclusion Automated injection systems offer considerable advantages in reducing health care worker radiation exposure in nuclear medicine. The substantial reduction in staff doses underscores the necessity of transitioning to such technology to promote safer clinical environments. This study highlights the critical role of automation in enhancing occupational safety standards within diagnostic radiology settings.

Keywords

¹⁸F-FDG - autoinjector - IRIS - TLD - manual injection

Publication History

Article published online:
16 October 2024

• References

• 1 Biran T, Weininger J, Malchi S, Marciano R, Chisin R. Measurements of occupational exposure for a technologist performing ¹⁸F FDG PET scans. Health Phys 2004; 87 (05) 539-544
• 2 Roberts FO, Gunawardana DH, Pathmaraj K. et al. Radiation dose to PET technologists and strategies to lower occupational exposure. J Nucl Med Technol 2005; 33 (01) 44-47
• 3 Schleipman AR, Castronovo Jr FP, Di Carli MF, Dorbala S. Occupational radiation dose associated with Rb-82 myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13 (03) 378-384
• 4 Biran T, Weininger J, Malchi S, Marciano R, Chisin R. Measurements of occupational exposure for a technologist performing ¹⁸F FDG PET scans. Health Phys 2004; 87 (05) 539-544
• 5 Benatar NA, Cronin BF, O'Doherty MJ. Radiation dose rates from patients undergoing PET: implications for technologists and waiting areas. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27 (05) 583-589
• 6 Seierstad T, Stranden E, Bjering K. et al. Doses to nuclear technicians in a dedicated PET/CT centre utilising ¹⁸F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2007; 123 (02) 246-249
• 7 Guillet B, Quentin P, Waultier S, Bourrelly M, Pisano P, Mundler O. Technologist radiation exposure in routine clinical practice with ¹⁸F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med Technol 2005; 33 (03) 175-179
• 8 Covens P, Berus D, Vanhavere F, Caveliers V. The introduction of automated dispensing and injection during PET procedures: a step in the optimisation of extremity doses and whole-body doses of nuclear medicine staff. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 140 (03) 250-258
• 9 Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA. et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37 (01) 181-200
• 10 Schleipman AR, Gerbaudo VH. Occupational radiation dosimetry assessment using an automated infusion device for positron-emitting radiotracers. J Nucl Med Technol 2012; 40 (04) 244-248