![]() | Related Articles |
Is lead shielding of sufferers obligatory throughout fluoroscopic procedures? A examine primarily based on kyphoplasty.
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Jan;47(1):37-43
Authors: Smith JR, Marsh RM, Silosky MS
Summary
OBJECTIVE: To find out the advantages, dangers, and limitations related to wrapping a affected person with lead shielding throughout fluoroscopy-guided kyphoplasty procedures as a strategy to scale back operator radiation publicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic phantom was used to imitate a affected person present process a kyphoplasty process underneath fluoroscopic steering. Radiation measurements of the air kerma fee (AKR) have been made at a number of places and underneath varied experimental situations. First, AKR was measured at varied angles alongside the horizontal aircraft of the phantom and at various distances from the phantom, each with and with out a lead apron wrapped across the decrease portion of the phantom (referred to right here as phantom shielding). Second, the impact of an operator’s apron was simulated by suspending a lead apron between the phantom and the measurement system. AKR was measured for the 4 shielding conditions-phantom shielding solely, operator apron solely, each phantom shielding and operator apron, and no shielding. Third, AKR measurements have been made at varied heights and with various C-arm angle.
RESULTS: In any respect places, the phantom shielding supplied no substantial safety past that supplied by an operator’s personal lead apron. Phantom shielding didn’t scale back AKR at a peak corresponding to that of an operator’s head.
CONCLUSIONS: Earlier studies of utilizing affected person shielding to cut back operator publicity fail to think about the function of an operator’s personal lead apron in radiation safety. For an operator carrying applicable private lead attire, affected person shielding gives no substantial discount in operator dose.
PMID: 28821928 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]