Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy of Lower-Body Shielding in Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventions

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

Abstract

Purpose

Computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy-guided interventions pose relevant radiation exposure to the interventionalist. The goal of this study was to analyze the efficacy of lower-body shielding as a simple structural method for decreasing radiation dose to the interventionalist without limiting access to the patient.

Material and Methods

All examinations were performed with a 128-slice dual source CT scanner (12 × 1.2-mm collimation; 120 kV; and 20, 40, 60, and 80 mAs) and an Alderson-Rando phantom. Scatter radiation was measured with an ionization chamber and a digital dosimeter at standardized positions and heights with and without a lower-body lead shield (0.5-mm lead equivalent; Kenex, Harlow, UK). Dose decreases were computed for the different points of measurement.

Results

On average, lower-body shielding decreased scatter radiation by 38.2% within a 150-cm radius around the shielding. This decrease is most significant close to the gantry opening and at low heights of 50 and 100 cm above the floor with a maximum decrease of scatter radiation of 95.9% close to the scanner’s isocentre. With increasing distance to the gantry opening, the effect decreased. There is almost no dose decrease effect at ≥150 above the floor. Scatter radiation and its decrease were linearly correlated with the tube current-time product (r 2 = 0.99), whereas percent scatter radiation decrease was independent of the tube current-time product.

Conclusion

Lower-body shielding is an effective way to decrease radiation exposure to the interventionalist and should routinely be used in CT fluoroscopy-guided interventions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Katada K, Anno H, Takeshita G et al (1994) Development of CT fluoroscopy using fast CT [in Japanese]. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 54:1172–1174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Katada K, Kato R, Anno A et al (1996) Guidance with real-time CT fluoroscopy: early clinical experience. Radiology 200:851–856

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim GR, Hur J, Lee SM et al (2011) CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy: a prospective controlled study to assess radiation doses and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 21:232–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Silverman SG, Tuncali K, Adams DF et al (1999) CT-fluoroscopy guided abdominal interventions: techniques, results, and radiation exposure. Radiology 212:673–681

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Mey J, Op de Beeck B, Meysman M et al (2000) Real-time CT fluoroscopy: diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Eur J Radiol 32:32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mahnken AH, Penzkofer T, Grommes J et al (2010) Carbon dioxide-enhanced CT-guided placement of aortic stent-grafts: feasibility in an animal model. J Endovasc Ther 17:332–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paulson EK, Sheafor DH, Enterline DS et al (2001) CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures: techniques and radiation dose to radiologists. Radiology 220:161–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Neeman Z, Dromi SA, Sarin S et al (2006) CT fluoroscopy shielding: decreases in scattered radiation for the patient and operator. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1999–2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Iida H, Chabatake M, Shimizu M et al (2002) The radiation protective devices for interventional procedures using computed tomography [in Japanese]. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 58:101–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stoeckelhuber BM, Leibecke T, Schulz E et al (2005) Radiation dose to the radiologist’s hand during continuous CT fluoroscopy-guided interventions. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 28:589–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Haipt F, Kirsch M, Hosten N (2010) Evaluation of a leaden radiation protection barrier for dose reduction for the physician during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventions [in German]. Rofo 182:512–517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sanchez R, Vano E, Fernandez JM et al (2010) Staff radiation doses in a real-time display inside the angiography room. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:1210–1214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shortt CP, Al-Hashimi H, Malone L et al (2007) Staff radiation doses to the lower extremities in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:1206–1209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Solomon S, Patricu A, Bohlman M et al (2002) Robotically driven interventions: a method of using CT fluoroscopy without radiation exposure to the physician. Radiology 225:277–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hohl C, Suess C, Wildberger JE et al (2008) Dose reduction during CT fluoroscopy: phantom study of angular beam modulation. Radiology 246:519–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nickoloff EL, Khandji A, Dutta A (2000) Radiation doses during CT fluoroscopy. Health Phys 79:675–681

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Parker DL (1982) Optimal short scan convolution reconstruction for fan beam CT. Med Phys 9:254–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

M. S., R. B., and T. F. are employees of Siemens’ Healthcare Sector. A. H. M. and C. R. have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, RWTH Aachen, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Andreas H. Mahnken

  2. Department of Applied Medical Engineering Helmholtz Institute, RWTH Aachen, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Andreas H. Mahnken

  3. Healthcare Sector, Siemens, 91301, Forchheim, Germany

    Martin Sedlmair, Rosemarie Banckwitz & Thomas Flohr

  4. Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Christine Ritter

Authors
  1. Andreas H. Mahnken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Sedlmair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Ritter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosemarie Banckwitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Flohr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas H. Mahnken.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahnken, A.H., Sedlmair, M., Ritter, C. et al. Efficacy of Lower-Body Shielding in Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventions. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35, 1475–1479 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0338-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0338-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation