Lead Vest X Ray Lead Vest X Ray Clipart

doi: 10.1007/s12194-013-0246-ten. Epub 2013 December 13.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of X-ray protective aprons in experimental and practical fields

Affiliations

• PMID: 24338033
• PMCID: PMC3888504
• DOI: x.1007/s12194-013-0246-x

Costless PMC article

Evaluation of the effectiveness of 10-ray protective aprons in experimental and applied fields

Hiroshige Mori  et al. Radiol Phys Technol. 2014 Jan .

Free PMC commodity

Abstruse

Few practical evaluation studies accept been conducted on 10-ray protective aprons in workplaces. We examined the effects of exchanging the protective apron type with regard to exposure reduction in experimental and practical fields, and hash out the effectiveness of 10-ray protective aprons. Experimental field evaluations were performed by the measurement of the X-ray transmission rates of protective aprons. Practical field evaluations were performed by the interpretation of the differences in the transit doses before and afterwards the apron substitution. A 0.fifty-mm lead-equivalent-thick non-lead frock had the lowest transmission charge per unit among the seven protective aprons, but weighed 10.9 kg and was too heavy. The 0.25 and 0.35-mm pb-equivalent-thick non-lead aprons differed little in the applied field of interventional radiology. The 0.35-mm lead apron had lower Ten-ray transmission rates and transit doses than the 0.25-mm lead-equivalent-thick not-lead apron, and each of these differences exceeded 8% in the experimental field and approximately 0.15 mSv/month in the practical field of computed tomography (p < 0.01). Therefore, nosotros concluded that the 0.25-mm lead-equivalent-thick aprons and 0.35-mm lead apron are effective for interventional radiology operators and computed tomography nurses, respectively.

Conflict of interest argument

The authors take no conflicts of interest in connection with this newspaper.

Figures

Fig. ane

Geometry of an experimental field for measuring the pb-equivalent thicknesses and X-ray transmission rates of protective aprons

Fig. 2

Relationship betwixt the tube potential and the effective energy of the primary 10-rays in an experimental field

Fig. iii

Relationship between constructive energy and X-ray manual rates of protective aprons in an experimental field. '[ ]' in figures expresses the lead-equivalent thicknesses of X-ray protective aprons. a-1 Comparison of protective apron types earlier and afterward substitution for the first abdominal interventional radiology operator. a-ii Comparison of protective apron types before and later on commutation for the 2nd intestinal interventional radiology operator. b Comparing of protective apron types earlier and after exchange for the interventional cardiology operator. c Comparing of protective frock types before and after exchange for computed tomography nurses

Fig. four

Difference in 10-ray transmission rates earlier and after frock substitution in an experimental field. Cases a, b, and c upon exchange of the protective frock type are described at the first of Sect. 2

Fig. 5

Relationship between the exposed doses to protective aprons (

$H_{\text{P}}{(10)}_{\text{collar/month}}$

) and the transmitted doses through protective aprons (

$H_{\text{P}}{(\mathrm{ten})}_{\text{trunk}/\text{month}}$

) before and later the frock exchange in a applied field. These occupational doses express the personal dose equivalents, which are defined by International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 51 [19] in tissues at a depth of 10 mm. '[ ]' and '

${\left|{\mathit{\alpha }}_{\mathrm{ii}}-{\mathit{\alpha }}_{\mathrm{i}}\right|}_{95\%}$

' in figures express the lead-equivalent thicknesses of the Ten-ray protective aprons and the 95 % confidence interval, respectively. a-1 Comparison between 0.25 and 0.35-mm lead-equivalent-thick non-atomic number 82 aprons as worn by the starting time abdominal interventional radiology operator. a-ii Comparison betwixt 0.25 and 0.35-mm lead-equivalent-thick not-lead aprons as worn by the second intestinal interventional radiology operator. b Comparing between 0.25-mm lead apron and 0.l-mm lead-equivalent-thick non-lead apron equally worn by the interventional cardiology operator. c Comparing between 0.25-mm pb-equivalent-thick not-lead apron and 0.35-mm lead apron as worn by computed tomography nurses

Fig. vi

Difference in the dose reduction rate before and after the substitution of protective apron types in a practical field. '[ ]' in a figure expresses the pb-equivalent thicknesses of the X-ray protective aprons

Similar articles

• Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology section, including the contribution from backscatter.

  Christodoulou EG, Goodsitt MM, Larson SC, Darner KL, Satti J, Chan HP. Christodoulou EG, et al. Med Phys. 2003 Jun;xxx(6):1033-eight. doi: 10.1118/1.1573207. Med Phys. 2003. PMID: 12852526

• Evaluation of the occupational doses of interventional radiologists.

  Kuipers M, Velders 40, de Winter RJ, Reekers JA, Piek JJ. Kuipers G, et al. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008 May-Jun;31(3):483-9. doi: 10.1007/s00270-008-9307-vii. Epub 2008 Feb 12. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008. PMID: 18266030 Free PMC article.

• Not all lightweight pb aprons and thyroid shields are alike.

  Fakhoury East, Provencher JA, Subramaniam R, Finlay DJ. Fakhoury E, et al. J Vasc Surg. 2019 Jul;seventy(1):246-250. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.055. Epub 2018 Oct 3. J Vasc Surg. 2019. PMID: 30292602

• Usefulness of non-pb aprons in radiation protection for physicians performing interventional procedures.

  Zuguchi Yard, Chida K, Taura Chiliad, Inaba Y, Ebata A, Yamada S. Zuguchi Thou, et al. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;131(four):531-4. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncn244. Epub 2008 Sep 17. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008. PMID: 18801753

• Should Nosotros Proceed the Pb in the Aprons?

  Bartal G, Sailer AM, Vano E. Bartal Grand, et al. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018 Mar;21(1):ii-six. doi: x.1053/j.tvir.2017.12.002. Epub 2017 Dec 15. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018. PMID: 29471995 Review.

Cited by half-dozen articles

• Remote-controlled cholangiography injection device: offset clinical study in Red china.

  Chen H, Shan LY, Ma T, Wang Y, Feng Z, Dong DH, Lv Y, Zhu HY. Chen H, et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan 7;22(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s12876-021-02087-8. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022. PMID: 34996384 Costless PMC article.

• Double-layered cobweb for lightweight flexible clothing providing shielding from low-dose natural radiation.

  Kim SC, Son JS. Kim SC, et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb eleven;11(1):3676. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83272-3. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 33574471 Free PMC commodity.

• Characterisation and mapping of scattered radiation fields in interventional radiology theatres.

  Nowak Thousand, Carbonez P, Krauss K, Verdun FR, Damet J. Nowak One thousand, et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct xxx;x(one):18754. doi: ten.1038/s41598-020-75257-v. Sci Rep. 2020. PMID: 33127938 Gratis PMC article.

• A Phantom Study on Fetal Dose Reducing Factors in Pregnant Patients with Chest Cancer during Radiotherapy Handling.

  Öğretici A, Çakır A, Akbaş U, Köksal C, Kalafat Ü, Tambaş Chiliad, Bilge H. Öğretici A, et al. J Med Phys. 2017 Jul-Sep;42(three):128-132. doi: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_133_16. J Med Phys. 2017. PMID: 28974857 Costless PMC commodity.

• How Effective Are Radiation Reducing Gloves in C-arm Fluoroscopy-guided Pain Interventions?

  Kim AN, Chang YJ, Cheon BK, Kim JH. Kim AN, et al. Korean J Hurting. 2014 April;27(two):145-51. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2014.27.2.145. Epub 2014 Mar 28. Korean J Pain. 2014. PMID: 24748943 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter South, Laskey W, Haines D, Norbash A, Mauro MA, Goldstein JA. Occupational wellness hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environs. Radiology. 2009;250:538–544. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2502082558. - DOI - PubMed
2. 1. Moore B, van Sonnenberg Due east, Casola One thousand, Novelline RA. The relationship betwixt back pain and lead apron use in radiologists. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:191–193. doi: 10.2214/ajr.158.1.1530763. - DOI - PubMed
3. 1. Ross AM, Segal J, Borenstein D, Jenkins Eastward, Cho S. Prevalence of spinal deejay disease among interventional cardiologists. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:68–lxx. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00678-nine. - DOI - PubMed
4. 1. Webster EW. Experiments with medium Z-materials for shielding against low-energy x-rays. Radiology. 1966;86:146.
5. 1. Webster EW. Addendum to 'Composite materials for 10-ray protection'. Health Phys. 1991;61:917–918. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more than resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Europe PubMed Central
  • PubMed Central
  • Springer

• Other Literature Sources

  • scite Smart Citations

• Medical

  • MedlinePlus Health Information

churchunge1940.blogspot.com

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24338033/

Share this post