PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 7, 2017Scientific Reports32 citationsOpen Access

Operator Radiation and the Efficacy of Ceiling-Suspended Lead Screen Shielding during Coronary Angiography: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study Using Real-Time Dosimeters

QJQianjun JiaZCZiman ChenXJXianxian Jiang

Structured PICO

Does a ceiling-suspended lead screen reduce operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography in a phantom model?

P
Population
Anthropomorphic phantom simulating a patient (170 cm, 60 kg) and two manikins simulating primary operator and assistant in a catheterization laboratory.
I
Intervention
Ceiling-suspended lead screen placed in three positions (close to patient phantom, left lateral to primary operator, close to primary operator) combined with table-side shielding.
C
Comparator
Unshielded baseline (without ceiling-suspended and lower body shielding).
O
Outcome
Radiation dose rates (μSv/min) measured on models mimicking a primary operator and an assistant using real-time dosimeters across eight coronary angiography projections.surrogate

Placing a ceiling-suspended lead screen close to the primary operator provides the most substantial radiation protection (up to 93.5% reduction) during coronary angiography.

Limitations

  • Fixed standing positions of the primary and assisting operators
  • Use of an anthropomorphic phantom as a mock patient to obtain a static baseline (patient body size influences radiation dose)

Abstract

Operator radiation and the radiation protection efficacy of a ceiling-suspended lead screen were assessed during coronary angiography (CA) in a catheterization laboratory. An anthropomorphic phantom was placed under the X-ray beam to simulate patient attenuation in eight CA projections. Using real-time dosimeters, radiation dose rates were measured on models mimicking a primary operator (PO) and an assistant. Subsequently, a ceiling-suspended lead screen was placed in three commonly used positions to compare the radiation protection efficacy. The radiation exposure to the PO was 2.3 to 227.9 (mean: 67.2 ± 49.0) μSv/min, with the left anterior oblique (LAO) 45°/cranial 25° and cranial 25° projections causing the highest and the lowest dose rates, respectively. The assistant experienced significantly less radiation overall (mean: 20.1 ± 19.6 μSv/min, P < 0.003), with the right anterior oblique (RAO) 30° and cranial 25° projections resulting in the highest and lowest exposure levels, respectively. Combined with table-side shielding, the ceiling-suspended lead screen reduced the radiation to the PO by 76.8%, 81.9% and 93.5% when placed close to the patient phantom, at the left side and close to the PO, respectively, and reduced the radiation to the assistant by 70.3%, 76.7% and 90.0%, respectively. When placed close to the PO, a ceiling-suspended lead screen provides substantial radiation protection during CA.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jia et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8065dd5eb4cdfc7531ba85https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42077
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper