Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Efficacy of a Radiation Absorbing Shield in Reducing Dose to the Interventionalist During Peripheral Endovascular Procedures: A Single Centre Pilot Study

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This prospective pilot study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using a radiation absorbing shield to reduce operator dose from scatter during lower limb endovascular procedures.

Materials and Methods

A commercially available bismuth shield system (RADPAD) was used. Sixty consecutive patients undergoing lower limb angioplasty were included. Thirty procedures were performed without the RADPAD (control group) and thirty with the RADPAD (study group). Two separate methods were used to measure dose to a single operator. Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) badges were used to measure hand, eye, and unshielded body dose. A direct dosimeter with digital readout was also used to measure eye and unshielded body dose. To allow for variation between control and study groups, dose per unit time was calculated.

Results

TLD results demonstrated a significant reduction in median body dose per unit time for the study group compared with controls (p = 0.001), corresponding to a mean dose reduction rate of 65 %. Median eye and hand dose per unit time were also reduced in the study group compared with control group, however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.081 for eye, p = 0.628 for hand). Direct dosimeter readings also showed statistically significant reduction in median unshielded body dose rate for the study group compared with controls (p = 0.037). Eye dose rate was reduced for the study group but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.142).

Conclusion

Initial results are encouraging. Use of the shield resulted in a statistically significant reduction in unshielded dose to the operator’s body. Measured dose to the eye and hand of operator were also reduced but did not reach statistical significance in this pilot study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. King JN, Champlin AM, Kelsey CA, Tripp DA (2002) Using a sterile disposable protective surgical drape for reduction of radiation exposure to interventionalists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:153–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amis ES, Butler PF, Applegate K et al (2007) American college of radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 4:272–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hausler U, Czarwinski R, Brix G (2009) Radiation exposure of medical staff from interventional X-ray procedures: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 19:2000–2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Germano JJ, Day G, Gregorious D, Natarajan V, Cohen T (2005) A novel radiation protection drape reduces radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided electrophysiology procedures. J Invasive Cardiol 17:469–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Simons GR, Orrison WW (2004) Use of a sterile, disposable, radiation-absorbing shield reduces occupational exposure to scatter radiation during pectoral device implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 27:726–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lida H, Horii J, Chabatake M, Mizushima T (2004) Evolution of radiation exposure to operator in diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures and reduction of radiation exposure to operator with protective devices (Abstract Only). Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 60:1713–1722

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nakashima E, Neriishi K, Minamoto A (2006) A reanalysis of atomic-bomb cataract data, 2000–2002: a threshold analysis. Health Phys 90:154–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neriishi K, Nakashima E, Minamoto A et al (2007) Postoperative cataract cases among atomic bomb survivors: radiation dose response and threshold. Radiat Res 168:404–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Authors on behalf of ICRP, Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M et al (2012) ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions/early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs—threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 41:1–322

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ainsbury EA, Bouffler SD, Dörr W et al (2009) Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies. Radiat Res 172:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DeAngelis LM (2001) Brain tumors. N Engl J Med 344:114–123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O (2012) Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention 7:1081–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Roguin A (2012) Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a call for alarm? Eur Heart J 33:1850–1851

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA (2013) Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol 111:1368–1372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Politi L, Biondi-Zoccai G, Nocetti L et al (2012) Reduction of scatter radiation during transradial percutaneous coronary angiography: A randomized trial using a lead free radiation shield. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 79:97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller D, Vañó E, Bartal G et al (2010) Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: A joint guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:230–239

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin CJ (2012) Personnel dosimetry in UK radiology: is it time for a change? J Radiol Prot 32:E3–E6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Michael Lee, Sarah Power, Mahmood Mirza, Ajay Thakorlal, Bhaskar Ganai, Linda Gavagan and Mark Given declares no conflict of interest.

Statement of Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Statement of Human Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Power, S., Mirza, M., Thakorlal, A. et al. Efficacy of a Radiation Absorbing Shield in Reducing Dose to the Interventionalist During Peripheral Endovascular Procedures: A Single Centre Pilot Study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 38, 573–578 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0997-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0997-8

Keywords

Navigation