Cargando…

Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?

BACKGROUND: Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. METHODS: Single-cente...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hyun, Seung-Jae, Kim, Ki-Jeong, Jahng, Tae-Ahn, Kim, Hyun-Jib
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27441288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117
_version_ 1782442989514129408
author Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
author_facet Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
author_sort Hyun, Seung-Jae
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. METHODS: Single-center, prospective, randomized study of adult patients with degenerative lumbar disorders, scheduled to undergo posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Instrumentation was performed in either a robot-assisted, minimally invasive approach (RO) or a conventional, fluoroscopically-assisted, open approach (FA). Outcome measures included the quantitative measurement of the surgeon’s actual exposure to radiation, as recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) worn both above and under the 0.5 mm thyroid and trunk lead protectors. FINDINGS: Sixty four patients were included in this study, 34 in the RO cohort and 30 in the FA cohort. The radiation blocked by the aprons, represented as the ratio of the under-apron to above-apron TLDs, averaged 37.1% (range 25.4–48.3%, 95% confidence interval between 30.6–43.6%). In the RO cohort, the average per-screw radiation dose and time were 51.9% and 73.7% lower, respectively, than the per screw exposure in the FA cohort. INTERPRETATION: The 0.5 mm lead aprons blocked just over one third of the radiation scattered towards the surgeon. Use of robotic-guidance in a minimally invasive approach provided for a reduction of 62.5% of the overall radiation the surgeon was exposed to during open conventional approach. We conclude that reduced radiation use (e.g. by using robotic guidance) is a more effective strategy for minimizing exposure to radiation than reliance on protection by lead aprons, and recommend utilization of practices and technologies that reduce the surgical team’s routine exposure to X-rays.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4946218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49462182016-07-20 Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they? Hyun, Seung-Jae Kim, Ki-Jeong Jahng, Tae-Ahn Kim, Hyun-Jib Heliyon Article BACKGROUND: Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. METHODS: Single-center, prospective, randomized study of adult patients with degenerative lumbar disorders, scheduled to undergo posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Instrumentation was performed in either a robot-assisted, minimally invasive approach (RO) or a conventional, fluoroscopically-assisted, open approach (FA). Outcome measures included the quantitative measurement of the surgeon’s actual exposure to radiation, as recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) worn both above and under the 0.5 mm thyroid and trunk lead protectors. FINDINGS: Sixty four patients were included in this study, 34 in the RO cohort and 30 in the FA cohort. The radiation blocked by the aprons, represented as the ratio of the under-apron to above-apron TLDs, averaged 37.1% (range 25.4–48.3%, 95% confidence interval between 30.6–43.6%). In the RO cohort, the average per-screw radiation dose and time were 51.9% and 73.7% lower, respectively, than the per screw exposure in the FA cohort. INTERPRETATION: The 0.5 mm lead aprons blocked just over one third of the radiation scattered towards the surgeon. Use of robotic-guidance in a minimally invasive approach provided for a reduction of 62.5% of the overall radiation the surgeon was exposed to during open conventional approach. We conclude that reduced radiation use (e.g. by using robotic guidance) is a more effective strategy for minimizing exposure to radiation than reliance on protection by lead aprons, and recommend utilization of practices and technologies that reduce the surgical team’s routine exposure to X-rays. Elsevier 2016-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4946218/ /pubmed/27441288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
title Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
title_full Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
title_fullStr Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
title_full_unstemmed Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
title_short Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
title_sort efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27441288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117
work_keys_str_mv AT hyunseungjae efficiencyofleadapronsinblockingradiationhowprotectivearethey
AT kimkijeong efficiencyofleadapronsinblockingradiationhowprotectivearethey
AT jahngtaeahn efficiencyofleadapronsinblockingradiationhowprotectivearethey
AT kimhyunjib efficiencyofleadapronsinblockingradiationhowprotectivearethey