UDC

[616-073.75+614.876-084+613.648](470.11)

DOI

10.17238/issn2542-1298.2019.7.2.187

Authors

Anastasiya V. Mironovskaya*/**, Oksana N. Duryagina**, Roman V. Buzinov*/**, Ol’ga N. Popova*, Andrey B. Gudkov*
*Northern State Medical University (Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation)
**Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing in the Arkhangelsk Region (Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation)
Corresponding author: Anastasiya Mironovskaya, address: prosp. Troitskiy 51, Arkhangelsk, 163000, Russian Federation; e-mail: miro_av@mail.ru

Abstract

This article presents data on medical exposure to irradiation of the Arkhangelsk region population in 2013–2017: the number of dose-generating investigations, individual and collective radiation doses in patients, as well as the structure of medical imaging. The five-year average of the occupational collective dose of medical exposure amounted to 0.75 man-mSv/year, while the individual average effective dose was 0.8 mSv/year. The five-year average of medical exposure of the population amounted to 598.9 man-Sv/year, while the contribution of medical exposure to the total annual dose of the population was 16.9 %. The annual average of radiological procedures per inhabitant of the Arkhangelsk Region is 1.94, which corresponds to the national level. At the same time, the individual effective dose of medical exposure per inhabitant (0.52 mSv/year) is slightly higher than the national average (0.50 mSv/year). We found that computed tomography (33.3 %) and radiography (29.2 %) give the highest dose, while their share in the total number of investigations is 3.2 % and 69.5 %, respectively. The growing use of computed tomography is associated with the increasing popularity of this diagnostic method year after year, as well as with the expanding range of equipment in medical institutions. At the same time, the contribution to the collective dose of special types of investigations with contrast agent injections (angiography, bronchography, etc.) is 1.8 times higher in the Arkhangelsk Region compared to the national average (18.0 % and 9.9 %, respectively). Keeping in mind the growing number of radiological investigations, medical workers are urged to carefully consider the need for referring a patient for these types of imaging.

Keywords

medical exposure, radiation dose, Arkhangelsk Region, patients, medical workers, radiological investigations, radiation safety

References

1. Karpin V.A., Kostryukova N.K., Gudkov A.B. Radiatsionnoe vozdeystvie na cheloveka radona i ego dochernikh produktov raspada [Human Radiation Action of Radon and Its Daughter Disintegration Products]. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2005, no. 4, pp. 13–17.
2. Sahu P., Panigrahi D.C., Mishra D.P. A Comprehensive Review on Sources of Radon and Factors Affecting Radon Concentration in Underground Uranium Mines. Environ. Earth Sci., 2016, vol. 75, no. 7, p. 617.
3. Onishchenko G.G., Popova A.Yu., Romanovich I.K., Barkovskiy A.N., Kormanovskaya T.A., Shevkun I.G. Radiatsionno-gigienicheskaya pasportizatsiya i ESKID – informatsionnaya osnova prinyatiya upravlencheskikh resheniy po obespecheniyu radiatsionnoy bezopasnosti naseleniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Soobshchenie 2. Kharakteristika istochnikov i doz oblucheniya naseleniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Radiation-Hygienic Passportization and USIDCInformation Basis for Management Decision Making for Radiation Safety of the Population of the Russian Federation Report 2: Characteristics of the Sources and Exposure Doses of the Population of the Russian Federation]. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2017, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 18–35. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426Kh-2017-10-3-18-35
4. Stavitskiy R.V. (ed.). Meditsinskaya rentgenologiya: tekhnicheskie aspekty, klinicheskie materialy, radiatsionnaya bezopasnost’ [Medical Radiology: Technical Aspects, Clinical Materials, Radiation Safety]. Moscow, 2003. 344 p.
5. Balonov M.I., Golikov V.Yu., Zvonova I.A., Kal’nitskiy S.A., Repin V.S., Sarycheva S.S., Chipiga L.A. Sovremennye urovni meditsinskogo oblucheniya v Rossii [Current Levels of Medical Exposure in Russia]. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2015, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 67–79.
6. Ponomareva T.V., Kal’nitskiy S.A., Vishnyakova N.M. Meditsinskoe obluchenie i sredstva farmakologicheskoy profilaktiki otdalennykh posledstviy [Medical Exposure and Strategy of Its Prophylaxis]. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2008, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 63–68.
7. Vodovatov A.V. Sovershenstvovanie norm radiatsionnoy bezopasnosti. Chast’ 1: Tselesoobraznost’ ogranicheniya doz meditsinskogo oblucheniya prakticheski zdorovykh lits [Improvement of Radiation Safety Standards. Part 1. Appropriateness of the Limitation of the Medical Exposure of Healthy Individuals]. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2018, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 115–124. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426Kh-2018-11-3-115-124
8. Karpin V.A., Gudkov A.B., Usynin A.F., Stolyarov V.V., Shulenin K.S. Vozdeystvie territorial’noy neodnorodnosti zemnoy kory na zabolevaemost’ zhiteley severnoy urbanizirovannoy territorii [Influence of Local Crustal Heterogeneity on the Residents’ Morbidity of the Northern Urbanized Territories]. Ekologiya cheloveka, 2018, no. 12, pp. 20–25.
9. Nikiforov D.V., Mezhova L.A., Kul’nev V.V., Lugovskoy A.M., Nikanov A.N., Kizeev A.N., Repina E.M. Zdorov’e naseleniya radonoopasnykh territoriy [Public Health in Radon-Affected Territories]. Ekologiya cheloveka, 2019, no. 1, pp. 40–50.
10. Vaupotič J., Smrekar N., Žunić Z.S. Comparison of Radon Doses Based on Different Radon Monitoring Approaches. J. Environ. Radioact., 2017, vol. 169-170, pp. 19–26.