Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the absorbed doses in a full anthropomorphic body phantom from two different panoramic radiography devices, performing protocols with and without applying a lead apron. METHODS: A RANDO(®) full body phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stamford, CT) was equipped with 110 thermoluminescent dosemeters at 55 different sites and set up in two different panoramic radiography devices [SCANORA(®) three-dimensional (3D) (SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland) and ProMax(®) 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland)] and exposed. Two different protocols were performed in the two devices. The first protocol was performed without any lead shielding, whereas the phantom was equipped with a standard adult lead apron for the second protocol. RESULTS: A two-tailed paired samples t-test for the SCANORA 3D revealed that there is no difference between the protocol using lead apron shielding (m = 87.99, s = 102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m = 87.34, s = 107.49), t(54) = -0.313, p > 0.05. The same test for the ProMax 3D showed that there is also no difference between the protocol using shielding (m = 106.48, s = 117.38) and the protocol without shielding (m = 107.75, s = 114,36), t(54) = 0.938, p > 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no statistically significant differences between a panoramic radiography with or without the use of lead apron shielding.

[Cardiorenal syndrome: limits of heart failure therapy]. / Kardiorenales Syndrom : Grenzen der Herzinsuffizienztherapie.

The cardiorenal syndrome is an interdisciplinary challenge with increasing health economic relevance. Renal failure is a strong predictor for mortality in patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF) and CHF is one of the fastest increasing morbidities in western countries. For successful therapy a close cooperation between cardiology und nephrology is required. Moreover, a good compliance of the patient is needed to improve symptoms and to reduce the frequency of cardiac decompensation. A broad cardiological and nephrological evaluation and consideration of optimal conservative options according to national and international guidelines are essential. However, a renal replacement therapy might be helpful in patients with refractory heart failure even if they are not dialysis-dependent. In cases of acute heart and renal failure an intensive care management might be necessary to reduce volume overload with the help of extracorporeal ultrafiltration or a dialysis modality. Nevertheless, in cases of chronic refractory CHF peritoneal dialysis should be preferred. The first analysis of the registry of the German Society of Nephrology (http://www.herz-niere.de) confirmed that there is a benefit for health-related quality of life in chronic CHF patients treated with peritoneal dialysis.

Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the absorbed doses in a full anthropomorphic body phantom from two different panoramic radiography devices, performing protocols with and without applying a lead apron. METHODS: A RANDO® full body phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stamford, CT) was equipped with 110 thermoluminescent dosemeters at 55 different sites and set up in two different panoramic radiography devices [SCANORA® three-dimensional (3D) (SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland) and ProMax® 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland)] and exposed. Two different protocols were performed in the two devices. The first protocol was performed without any lead shielding, whereas the phantom was equipped with a standard adult lead apron for the second protocol. RESULTS: A two-tailed paired samples t-test for the SCANORA 3D revealed that there is no difference between the protocol using lead apron shielding (m = 87.99, s = 102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m = 87.34, s = 107.49), t(54) = −0.313, p > 0.05. The same test for the ProMax 3D showed that there is also no difference between the protocol using shielding (m = 106.48, s = 117.38) and the protocol without shielding (m = 107.75, s = 114,36), t(54) = 0.938, p > 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no statistically significant differences between a panoramic radiography with or without the use of lead apron shielding.