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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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
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
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
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
Nakashima E, Neriishi K, Minamoto A (2006) A reanalysis of atomic-bomb cataract data, 2000–2002: a threshold analysis. Health Phys 90:154–160
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
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
Ainsbury EA, Bouffler SD, Dörr W et al (2009) Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies. Radiat Res 172:1–9
DeAngelis LM (2001) Brain tumors. N Engl J Med 344:114–123
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
Roguin A (2012) Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a call for alarm? Eur Heart J 33:1850–1851
Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA (2013) Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol 111:1368–1372
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
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
Martin CJ (2012) Personnel dosimetry in UK radiology: is it time for a change? J Radiol Prot 32:E3–E6
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0997-8