Radiation Exposure During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures: Portable Shielding System Versus Standard Lead Aprons.

Introduction Significant progress in the field of interventional cardiology has led to a rise in percutaneous procedures and an increase in the risk of radiation exposure at the workplace. Staff health has been put at risk due to the limitations of conventional radiation protective techniques. Innovative methods, such as RAMPART, have promising prospects for enhancing radiation safety. The purpose of this study was to evaluate RAMPART's effectiveness and practicality in comparison to conventional protective techniques with a lead apron and shield (LAS) during cardiac interventional procedures. Method One hundred elective cardiac procedures were enrolled in this prospective single-center research study. Two groups were formed from the participants: standard protection (group A) and RAMPAT system (group B). Real-time dosimeters were used to track the radiation dosage, dosage reduction factor, dosage reduction percentage, and likelihood of exceeding the limit, which were included in the data. Proceduralists were urged to use different strategies to reduce exposure. The study was approved by an ethical committee and ran from June 2023 to August 2023. Results When comparing the RAMPART group to the conventional protection group, neck-level radiation exposure was considerably lower for all workers. There were no notable variations in the exposure of the waist. The RAMPART group was shown to be superior in minimizing radiation exposure, as evidenced by dose reduction metrics. The groups had comparable procedural characteristics. Conclusion Compared to conventional LAS, the RAMPART system dramatically reduces radiation exposure to the entire body.

Real-Time Dosimetry in Endourology: Tracking Staff Radiation Risks.

BACKGROUND: To retrospectively investigate scatter radiation (SCR) exposure among staff in the endourology operating theatre. METHODS: During surgeries under fluoroscopic guidance, five professional groups (urological surgeon [US], surgical nurse [SN], assistant surgical nurse [ASN], anaesthetist [A], and anaesthesia care [AC]) wore real-time dosimeters (Philips DoseAware System) on their head and chest over lead aprons between July 2023 and February 2024. The SCR data were analysed and correlated with procedural and patient factors. RESULTS: In total, 249 procedures were performed, including 86 retrograde intrarenal surgeries and 10 percutaneous nephrolithotomies. Median SCR exposure was 38.81, 17.20, 7.71, 11.58, 0.63, 0.23, 0.12, and 0.15 Microsievert (µSv) for US chest (USC), US head (USH), SN chest (SNC), SN head (SNH), A chest (AC), AC chest (ACC), ASN chest (ASNC), and ASN head (ASNH), respectively. There was a significant correlation between DAP and SCR doses detected by USC, USH, SNC, SNH, AC, and ACC dosimeters (p < 0.05). The median chest-to-eye conversion factor (CECF) was 2.11 for the US and 0.71 for the SN. CONCLUSIONS: This study, using real-time dosimetry, is among the first to assess staff occupational SCR exposure in endourology. It highlights a substantial SCR exposure, indicating an occupational health hazard that warrants further investigation.

Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the radiation exposure for the urology staff during endourology, our aim was to evaluate the trends of radiation protection in the operation room by endourologists from European centers and to estimate their annual radiation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study involving experienced endourologists from different European centers to evaluate whether the protection and threshold doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) were being followed. A 36-question survey was completed on the use of fluoroscopy and radiation protection. Annual prospective data from chest, extremities, and eye dosimeters were collected during a 4-year period (2017-2020). RESULTS: Ten endourologists participated. Most surgeons use lead aprons and thyroid shield (9/10 and 10/10), while leaded gloves and caps are rarely used (2/10 both). Six out of ten surgeons wear leaded glasses. There is widespread use of personal chest dosimeters under the apron (9/10), and only 5/10 use a wrist or ring dosimeter and 4 use an eye dosimeter. Two endourologists use the ALARA protocol. The use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL puncture was reported by 8 surgeons. The mean number of PCNL and URS per year was 30.9 (SD 19.9) and 147 (SD 151.9). The mean chest radiation was 1.35 mSv per year and 0.007 mSv per procedure. Mean radiation exposure per year in the eyes and extremities was 1.63 and 11.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Endourologists did not exceed the threshold doses for radiation exposure to the chest, extremities and lens. Furthermore, the ALARA protocol manages to reduce radiation exposure.

Time to Look for Ergonomically Viable Designs of Radiation Protection Aprons and Thyroid Shields in Orthopedic Surgery: A Survey of 416 Orthopedic Surgeons.

Introduction The advent of minimally invasive surgery has increased the use of C-arm among orthopedic surgeons. Their views on the ergonomicity of radiation protection aprons and thyroid shields need elucidation. To investigate, we deliberated a question-based survey. The primary aim of the survey was to find out the percentage of those not using these devices, the prevalence of back pain, and its relationship with the type of radiation protection aprons. Materials and methods This was a cross-sectional survey. A five-section Google Forms survey (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA) was filled out, and responses from 416 orthopedic surgeons were included. Analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Results Of the total number of orthopedic surgeons, 36.8% felt that apart from radiation exposure, wearing a radiation protection apron was the biggest problem in C-arm usage. Furthermore, 20.4% wore thyroid shields the majority of the time. The 31-40 years age group was the most comfortable wearing these devices, wore them more often, and suffered more often from back pain (all p<0.01). Conclusion The study concluded that the majority of orthopedic surgeons were not comfortable with the current designs of radiation protection aprons and thyroid shields. Thyroid shields are worn less than aprons. Lead apron weight and thyroid shield ergonomicity were the number one reason for being bare-bodied. Among those who regularly wore aprons, a large proportion suffered from back pain.

Lead aprons and thyroid collars: to be, or not to be?

Wearing lead aprons and thyroid collars for long periods of time has a subjective component: to balance the effective dose reduction with the effort of carrying a heavy load. Occupational radiation exposure has decreased dramatically in the last century within the health care system. During the same period the use of lead aprons and thyroid collars has also gone up. Therefore, a question that may be raised is: how safe is safe enough? In order to promote stakeholder involvement, the aim of the present study was to investigate staff's experience of discomforts associated with wearing lead aprons and thyroid collars for long periods of time, and also to investigate staff's willingness to tolerate personal dose equivalent (expressed as radiation dose) and the corresponding increase in future cancer risk to avoid wearing these protective tools. A questionnaire was developed and given to staff working in operating or angiography rooms at Skaraborg Hospital in Sweden. The results from the 245 respondents showed that 51% experienced bothersome warmth, 36% experienced fatigue and 26% experienced ache or pain that they believed was associated with wearing lead aprons. One third of the respondents would tolerate a personal dose equivalent of 1 mSv per year to avoid wearing lead aprons, but only a fifth would tolerate the corresponding increase in future cancer risk (from 43% to 43.2%). In conclusion, discomforts associated with wearing lead aprons and thyroid collars for long periods of time are common for the staff using them. At the same time, only a minority of the staff would tolerate a small increase in future cancer risk to avoid wearing them. The present study gives an example of stakeholder involvement and points at the difficulties in making reasonable decisions about the use of these protective tools.

Patient shielding during dentomaxillofacial radiography: Recommendations from the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology established an ad hoc committee to draft evidence-based recommendations and clinical guidance for the application of patient contact shielding during dentomaxillofacial imaging. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The committee reviewed monographs and reports from radiation protection organizations and studies that reported radiation dose to gonads, breasts, and thyroid gland from dentomaxillofacial imaging. RESULTS: Considering the absence of radiation-induced heritable effects in humans and the negligible dose to the gonads and fetus from dentomaxillofacial imaging, the committee recommends discontinuing shielding of the gonads, pelvic structures, and fetuses during all dentomaxillofacial radiographic imaging procedures. On the basis of radiation doses from contemporaneous maxillofacial imaging, the committee considered that the risks from thyroid cancer are negligible and recommends that thyroid shielding not be used during intraoral, panoramic, cephalometric, and cone-beam computed tomographic imaging. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This position statement informs and educates the reader on evolving radiation protection practices and provides simple, unequivocal guidance to dental personnel to implement these guidelines. State and local authorities should be contacted to update regulations to reflect these recommendations.

Relationship between Wearing a Lead Apron and Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Questionnaire Survey of Japanese Radiological Technologists.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a self-reported questionnaire survey of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) among Japanese radiological technologists (RTs) and to report on the relationship between wearing a lead apron and WMSDs. Between February and April of 2021, RTs in Okayama Prefecture, Japan, were surveyed by mail and through a website. Information on individual characteristics, physical factors at work, and the presence of WMSDs were collected. All participants were also asked whether they frequently wore lead aprons. A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between wearing a lead apron and WMSDs. The model was adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and working hours. Of the 123 participants, 67 (54.5%) had WMSDs. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that WMSDs were significantly associated with wearing a lead apron. Compared to the "Never wear" group, the odds ratios for the "Always/Frequently wear" and "Sometimes/Rarely wear" groups were 7.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.28-48.46; p=0.026) and 7.80 (95% CI=1.43-42.44; p=0.017), respectively. Our analysis suggests that wearing a lead apron is associated with WMSDs, and thus design modifications in lead aprons may improve the occupational health management of RTs.

Protección de embarazadas en radiología oral / Protection of pregnant women in oral radiology

Las radiografías dentales son necesarias para diagnosticar y hacer seguimiento de múltiples enfermedades orales. Sin embargo, debido a los conocidos efectos estocásticos de los rayos X dentales es imprescindible garantizar protección a los pacientes. Especial atención merecen las mujeres embarazadas por cuanto el feto es altamente vulnerable a la radiación, sobre todo enlas primeras semanas. Algunas recomendaciones de protección radiológica en esta población son: El uso de radiografías ha sido justificado; realizar el estudio 10 días después del inicio de la menstruación; informar del procedimiento a la embarazada a fin de evitar el miedo; optimizar el procedimiento (haz colimado, alto kVp, control manual de disparo, calibración regular etc.) y usar delantal plomado solo si las condiciones de optimización son insuficientes

Dental x-rays are necessary to diagnose and monitor multiple oral diseases. However, due to the well-known stochastic effects of dental X-rays, it is essential to guarantee patient protection. Pregnant women deserve special attention because the fetus is highly vulnerable to radiation, especially in the first weeks. Some recommendations for radiological protection in this population are the use of radiographs has been justified; conduct the study 10 days after the onset of menstruation; inform the pregnant woman about the procedure to avoid fear; optimize the procedure (collimated beam, high kVp, manual trip control, regular calibration etc.) and use a lead apron only if the optimization conditions are insufficient.

Evaluation of Annual Staff Doses and Radiation Shielding Efficiencies of Thyroid Shield and Lead Apron during Preparation and Administration of 131I, 81Kr, and 99mTc-Labeled Radiopharmaceuticals.

Nuclear medicine technicians would receive unavoidable exposures during the preparation and administration of radiopharmaceuticals. Based on the staff dose monitoring, the dose reduction efficiencies of the radiation protection shields and the need to implement additional strategies to reduce the staff doses could be evaluated. In this study, medical staff doses during the preparation and administration of Tc-99 m, I-131, and Kr-81 radiopharmaceuticals were evaluated. The dose reduction efficiencies of the lead apron and thyroid shield were also investigated. GR-207 thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) chips were used for quantifying the medical staff doses. The occupational dose magnitudes were determined in five organs at risk including eye lens, thyroid, fingers, chest, and gonads. TLDs were located under and over the protective shields for evaluating the dose reduction efficiencies of the lead apron and thyroid shield. The occupational doses were normalized to the activities used in the working shifts. During preparation and injection of Tc-99 m radiopharmaceutical, the average annual doses were higher in the chest (4.49 mGy) and eye lenses (4 mGy). For I-131 radiopharmaceutical, the average annual doses of the point-finger (15.8 mGy) and eye lenses (1.23 mGy) were significantly higher than other organs. During the preparation and administration of Kr-81, the average annual doses of the point-finger (0.65 mGy) and chest (0.44 mGy) were higher. The significant dose reductions were achieved using the lead apron and thyroid shield. The radiation protection shields and minimum contact with the radioactive sources, including patients, are recommended to reduce the staff doses.

Do carers and comforters require lead aprons during general radiographic examinations?

INTRODUCTION: Carers and comforters frequently remain with children during paediatric general radiographic examinations. As well as improving the likelihood of overall success of the procedure, this can be important for minimising stress and anxiety of the child. Wearing lead aprons can contribute to additional stress and anxiety about the procedure for both carer and child, specifically due to radiation risk. It also introduces some practical challenges for radiographers. This study quantified a carers exposure to scattered radiation for general radiographic examinations when remaining with a child to assist in positioning or to comfort them. METHODS: Scattered radiation was measured at four common locations where a carer may stand, with a range of tube potentials (40 kVp to 100 kVp ) and PMMA thicknesses of 2.5-22.5 cm. This was then matched to our clinical protocols to estimate the radiation dose a carer could be exposed to while assisting a patient during general radiographic examinations. RESULTS: The effective dose received by a carer standing 20 cm from the centre of the patient varies from 11 min of Australian natural BERT for a finger radiograph on a patient <3 kg and up to 62 h for a swimmers view radiograph performed on a patient >70 kg. CONCLUSION: This dosimetric data allowed an evidence-based assessment of radiation protection requirements for the carer using the ALARA principle. At our institution, it was decided that a lead apron is not required if the carer is unlikely to receive more than 2 µSv. A new policy, presented here, was developed to implement this decision.

Evaluation of Back Pain and Lead Apron Use Among Staff at a District General Hospital.

Objectives To evaluate the prevalence of back pain among staff who regularly use lead aprons, correlating this to their use, and improve the knowledge and understanding of lead apron use among staff. Methods A questionnaire study was undertaken from November 2018 to February 2019 on staff in departments using lead aprons on a routine basis (n = 59) defined as the study group (SG), and staff who did not wear lead aprons (n = 62) defined as the control group (CG). Additionally, a separate questionnaire (n = 43) was distributed to lead apron users regarding education and knowledge, following which an education session was set up and the staff was re-evaluated. Results The prevalence of back pain was higher in the SG; 63% (SG) versus 32% (CG). The proportion of staff that felt lead aprons (SG) or work (CG) was the cause of this back pain was also higher in the SG than the CG: 83% versus 37%. A significant proportion of staff was unaware of the lead equivalence, material, and types of lead aprons available, after education this improved; 92% of staff now think more carefully when choosing a lead apron. Discussion Back pain is prevalent among staff using lead aprons and a lack of education regarding their use is evident. This could result in time off work and lead to unsafe practices around ionizing radiation. Education improved the knowledge and understanding of lead apron use. This could lead to increased comfort and less strain on the back, potentially lowering the prevalence of back pain.

Can Common Lead Apron in Testes Region Cause Radiation Dose Reduction during Chest CT Scan? A Patient Study.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is a routine procedure for diagnosing using ionization radiation which has hazardous effects especially on sensitive organs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify the dose reduction effect of lead apron shielding on the testicular region during routine chest CT scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this measurement study, the routine chest CT examinations were performed for 30 male patients with common lead aprons folded and positioned in testis regions. The patient's mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.2 ± 4.6 kg/m2. To calculate the doses at testis region, three thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100) were attached at the top surface of the apron as an indicator of the doses without shielding, and three TLDs under the apron for doses with shielding. The TLD readouts were compared using SPSS software (Wilcoxon test) version 16. RESULTS: The radiation dose in the testicular regions was reduced from 0.46 ± 0.04 to 0.20 ± 0.04 mGy in the presence of lead apron shielding (p < 0.001), the reduction was equal to 56%. Furthermore, the heritable risk probability was obtained at 2.0 ×10-5 % and 4.6 ×10-5 % for the patients using the lead apron shield versus without shield, respectively. CONCLUSION: Applying common lead aprons as shielding in the testis regions of male patients undergoing chest CT scans can reduce the radiation doses significantly. Therefore, this shield can be recommended for routine chest CT examinations.

Cutting Staff Radiation Exposure and Improving Freedom of Motion during CT Interventions: Comparison of a Novel Workflow Utilizing a Radiation Protection Cabin versus Two Conventional Workflows.

This study aimed to evaluate the radiation exposure to the radiologist and the procedure time of prospectively matched CT interventions implementing three different workflows-the radiologist-(I) leaving the CT room during scanning; (II) wearing a lead apron and staying in the CT room; (III) staying in the CT room in a prototype radiation protection cabin without lead apron while utilizing a wireless remote control and a tablet. We prospectively evaluated the radiologist's radiation exposure utilizing an electronic personal dosimeter, the intervention time, and success in CT interventions matched to the three different workflows. We compared the interventional success, the patient's dose of the interventional scans in each workflow (total mAs and total DLP), the radiologist's personal dose (in µSV), and interventional time. To perform workflow III, a prototype of a radiation protection cabin, with 3 mm lead equivalent walls and a foot switch to operate the doors, was built in the CT examination room. Radiation exposure during the maximum tube output at 120 kV was measured by the local admission officials inside the cabin at the same level as in the technician's control room (below 0.5 µSv/h and 1 mSv/y). Further, to utilize the full potential of this novel workflow, a sterile packed remote control (to move the CT table and to trigger the radiation) and a sterile packed tablet anchored on the CT table (to plan and navigate during the CT intervention) were operated by the radiologist. There were 18 interventions performed in workflow I, 16 in workflow II, and 27 in workflow III. There were no significant differences in the intervention time (workflow I: 23 min ± 12, workflow II: 20 min ± 8, and workflow III: 21 min ± 10, p = 0.71) and the patient's dose (total DLP, p = 0.14). However, the personal dosimeter registered 0.17 ± 0.22 µSv for workflow II, while I and III both documented 0 µSv, displaying significant difference (p < 0.001). All workflows were performed completely and successfully in all cases. The new workflow has the potential to reduce interventional CT radiologists' radiation dose to zero while relieving them from working in a lead apron all day.

Anti-X Apron Wearing and Musculoskeletal Problems Among Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Interventional radiology activities and other medical practices using ionising radiation have become increasingly prevalent. In this context, the use of anti-X aprons, in association with awkward postures and non-ergonomic working conditions, might cause the onset of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This research aims to evaluate the evidence about the correlation between wearing anti-X aprons and work-related MSDs. A systematic scoping review of articles published between 1990 and 2020 was conducted by searching the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Twelve cross-sectional studies, conducted among interventional physicians, nurses, and technicians, were finally included. Five studies primarily investigated the association between use of anti-X aprons and MSDs, showing that a higher prevalence of disorders was not always associated with the use of protective aprons. No studies investigated the impact of anti-X aprons on fitness for work assessment, particularly in subjects with MSDs. There is no complete agreement about the correlation between anti-X apron-wearing and the occurrence of MSDs, although the possible discomfort of workers using anti-X aprons appears more evident. Further studies are needed to objectify the role of these protective devices in the genesis of MSDs and to offer specific ergonomic solutions for healthcare workers.

How effective are lead-rubber aprons in protecting radiosensitive organs from secondary ionizing radiation?

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this experiment was to explore the direction of scattered secondary ionizing radiation to a patient. A left lateral radiographic examination of the elbow was deemed appropriate due to its close proximity to radiosensitive organs and record dose limiting opportunities upon wearing a lead-rubber apron. METHODS: An anthropomorphic phantom and lead-rubber apron (Pb 0.35 mm) was used with a 15 cc ionization chamber (model 10,100 AT TRIAD) to measure scattered radiation to radiosensitive organs. Dose readings were recorded before and after in order to quantify dose reduction. Pearson's correlation, linear regression, t-test and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistics were used to affirm how likely dose limitation was attributed to chance (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The lead-rubber apron offered dose reduction to most radiosensitive organs. Notably, ionizing radiation was significantly reduced to the left breast 0.0083 µGy (98%), right breast 0.0000 µGy (99.9%) and spleen 0.0262 µGy (99.9%). No empirical benefit was recorded for testes and ovaries. Interestingly, the thyroid recorded an increase in dose (0.1733 µGy; p = 0.01). This was later mitigated using a thyroid collar but identifies increased stochastic risks if lead-aprons are worn alone. Scattered radiation was also reduced to both eyes, which were not directly covered. CONCLUSION: Lead-rubber aprons are generally utilized to limit ionizing radiation, yet this article offers insight whereby increases to ionizing radiation to the thyroid are plausible when wearing a lead-rubber apron alone. Whilst these findings cannot be generalized to other radiographic examinations it provides insight into a potential increase risk of scatter to a radiosensitive organ. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper has implications because it identifies that lead-rubber has an impact on scattered ionizing radiation to radiosensitive organs for a lateral elbow examination. Further, it identifies the potential for ionizing radiation to be increased to the thyroid upon wearing a lead-rubber apron alone.

Perceptions on radioprotective garment usage and underlying reasons for non-adherence among medical radiation workers from public hospitals in a middle-income Asian setting: A qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Radioprotective garments protect medical radiation workers from exposure to radiation at workplace. However, previous studies have found poor adherence to the use of radioprotective garments. OBJECTIVES: We explored the perceptions and practices related to the use of radioprotective garments among medical radiation workers in public hospitals, and sought to understand the reasons for non-adherence. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative approach was applied by conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with 18 medical radiation workers from three university hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide. RESULTS: Five themes emerged with respect to perceptions on the use of radioprotective garments: (i) the dilemmas in practising radiation protection, (ii) indication of workers' credibility, (iii) physical appearance of radioprotective garments, (iv) practicality of radioprotective garment use, and (v) impact on workflow. Actual lack of radioprotective garment use was attributed to inadequate number of thyroid shield and other garments, radioprotective garments' unsightly appearance including being dirty and defective, impracticality of using radioprotective garments for some nuclear medicine procedures, disruption of workflow because of workers' limited movements, attitudes of workers, and organisational influences. CONCLUSION: Medical radiation workers demonstrated a definitive practice of using radioprotective aprons, but often neglected to use thyroid shields and other garments. Availability and hygiene are reported as the core issues, while unclear guidelines on practical use of radioprotective garments appear to lead to confusion among medical radiation workers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of its kind from a middle-income Asian setting.

Evaluation of bacterial presence on lead X-ray aprons utilised in the operating room via IBIS and standard culture methods.

BACKGROUND: Despite precautions, surgical procedures carry risk of infection. Radiation-protective lead aprons worn by operating personnel are a potential source of bacterial contamination and have not been fully evaluated. AIM/OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lead aprons as a source of bacterial contamination, identify organisms most commonly found on this source, and devise a method with which to lower the risk of contamination. METHODS: In this basic science study, 20 randomly selected lead X-ray aprons were swabbed at three time points. The experimental treatment was with a hospital-grade disinfectant wipe. The samples were assessed for bacterial growth via traditional plating methods and mass spectrometry. Plates were graded on a scale of 0 to 4+ based on the number of quadrants with growth. Growth on one quadrant or more was considered contaminated. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Bacteria were initially detected via IBIS on a majority of the aprons (32/40), most commonly Staphylococcus epidermidis and Propionibacterium acnes. Virulent organisms cultured were Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE), Neisseria, Streptococcus viridans and pseudomonas. MRSE were detected on 5/20 of the samples. Immediately after treatment, the majority of aprons showed less bacterial contamination (0/20 standard culture positive; 13/20 IBIS positive) with some recurrence at the 6-h time point (2/20 standard culture positive, 16/20 IBIS positive). All MRSE detected initially was eradicated. DISCUSSION: Lead X-ray aprons worn in the operating room harbour bacteria. Disinfecting before use may prevent the introduction of virulent organisms to patients. Our proposed method of sanitising with a disinfectant wipe is quick and effective.

Bacterial Contamination of Lead Aprons in a High-Volume Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory and Disinfection Using an Automated Ultraviolet-C Radiation System.

OBJECTIVES: Quantify and characterize bacterial contamination of lead aprons in a high-volume catheterization laboratory and evaluate the efficacy of decontamination using an ultraviolet-C (UV-C) radiation system. BACKGROUND: Bacterial contamination and ineffective disinfection of personal protective equipment in medical centers pose potential health risks to patients and medical staff. The contamination burden of lead aprons and a reliable disinfection strategy are unknown. METHODS: Ten routinely used, unsterilized lead aprons from a high-volume catheterization laboratory were studied. Standard and bacteria-resistant outer fabrics were included. Swabbings from four locations on each apron (inner thyroid collar, chest, waist, and bottom border) were obtained at baseline and after a 15-minute decontamination cycle using the UV-C based DCab System (Nosocom Solutions). Colony counts, speciation, and antibiotic resistance were obtained from aerobic and anaerobic cultures. RESULTS: Baseline cultures grew ≥1 colony from 25 of 40 samples (62.5%; 310 colonies; 0-100 colonies/sample; 16 organisms), mainly skin and mouth flora without antibiotic resistance. Baseline growth was greatest from the thyroid collar and similar between different fabrics. UV-C reduced subsequent growth (7.8 ± 23.8 colonies overall vs 0.1 ± 0.3 colonies overall; P<.001), with all four isolates considered contaminants of laboratory handling. Colony counts were reduced in thyroid collar, chest, waist, nylon fabric, polyurethane fabric, and alternative bacteria-resistant fabric subgroups (all P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Routinely used lead aprons in a high-volume catheterization laboratory were contaminated by non-pathogenic skin and mouth flora located predominantly on the thyroid collar. Disinfection using an automated UV-C based system is highly effective across different apron surface locations and fabric types.

A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: Radiation-protective aprons are commonly used by interventionists to protect against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Choice of appropriate aprons with respect to lead equivalence and weight is necessary for effective protection and reduced physical strain. This study evaluates the knowledge and practice of using radiation-protective aprons by interventionists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-one interventional radiologists who attended an annual interventional conference were provided with a questionnaire which included age, years of experience, area of expertise, type and weight of apron used, and physical strain caused due to the use of apron. RESULTS: About 14.3% of the interventionists practiced in an angiographic suite for less than an hour a day, 45% for 2-4 h, 21% for 4-6 h, 10% for 6-10 h, and the rest above 10 h/day. About 68% of the interventionists wore 0.5 mm lead-equivalent (Pbeq) aprons; 15.4% with 0.25 mm Pbeq; about 5.5% with 0.35 mm Pbeq aprons, and the remaining were not aware of the lead equivalence. About 47% reported that they had body aches due to wearing single-sided aprons. Interventionists working more than 10 h/day wearing single-sided lead apron predominantly complained of shoulder pain and back pain. CONCLUSION: A large fraction of interventionists reported that they had physical strain. It is suggestive for interventionists to wear correct fit and light-weight aprons with appropriate lead equivalence.

Skin entrance dose with and without lead apron in digital panoramic radiography for selected sensitive body regions.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the dose at skin level at five significant anatomical regions for panoramic radiography devices with and without lead apron by means of a highly sensitive dosimeter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A female RANDO-phantom was exposed in five different digital panoramic radiography systems, and the dose at skin level was assessed tenfold for each measurement region by means of a highly sensitive solid-state-dosimeter. The five measurement regions selected were the thyroid, both female breasts, the gonads, and a central region in the back of the phantom. For each panoramic machine, the measurements were performed in two modes: with and without a commercial lead apron specifically designed for panoramic radiography. Reproducibility of the measurements was expressed by absolute differences and the coefficient of variation. Values between shielded and unshielded doses were pooled for each region and compared by means of the paired Wilcoxon tests (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Reproducibility as represented by the mean CV was 22 ± 52 % (median 2.3 %) with larger variations for small dose values. Doses at skin level ranged between 0.00 µGy at the gonads and 85.39 µGy at the unshielded thyroid (mean ± SD 15 ± 24 µGy). Except for the gonads, the dose in all the other regions was significantly lower (p < 0.001) when a lead apron was applied. Unshielded doses were between 1.02-fold (thyroid) and 112-fold (at the right breast) higher than those with lead apron shielding (mean: 14-fold ± 18-fold). CONCLUSION: Although the doses were entirely very low, we observed a significant increase in dose in the radiation-sensitive female breast region when no lead apron was used. Future discussions on shielding requirements for panoramic radiography should focus on these differences in the light of the linear non-threshold (LNT) theory which is generally adopted in medical imaging.