Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Livingstone, Roshan Samuel, Varghese, Anna, Keshava, Shyamkumar N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6118106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30197825
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_34_18
_version_ 1783351866619330560
author Livingstone, Roshan Samuel
Varghese, Anna
Keshava, Shyamkumar N.
author_facet Livingstone, Roshan Samuel
Varghese, Anna
Keshava, Shyamkumar N.
author_sort Livingstone, Roshan Samuel
collection PubMed
description 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 (Pb(eq)) aprons; 15.4% with 0.25 mm Pb(eq); about 5.5% with 0.35 mm Pb(eq) 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6118106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61181062018-09-07 A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology Livingstone, Roshan Samuel Varghese, Anna Keshava, Shyamkumar N. J Clin Imaging Sci Original Article 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 (Pb(eq)) aprons; 15.4% with 0.25 mm Pb(eq); about 5.5% with 0.35 mm Pb(eq) 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. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6118106/ /pubmed/30197825 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_34_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Clinical Imaging Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Livingstone, Roshan Samuel
Varghese, Anna
Keshava, Shyamkumar N.
A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology
title A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology
title_full A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology
title_fullStr A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology
title_full_unstemmed A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology
title_short A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology
title_sort study on the use of radiation-protective apron among interventionists in radiology
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6118106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30197825
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_34_18
work_keys_str_mv AT livingstoneroshansamuel astudyontheuseofradiationprotectiveapronamonginterventionistsinradiology
AT vargheseanna astudyontheuseofradiationprotectiveapronamonginterventionistsinradiology
AT keshavashyamkumarn astudyontheuseofradiationprotectiveapronamonginterventionistsinradiology
AT livingstoneroshansamuel studyontheuseofradiationprotectiveapronamonginterventionistsinradiology
AT vargheseanna studyontheuseofradiationprotectiveapronamonginterventionistsinradiology
AT keshavashyamkumarn studyontheuseofradiationprotectiveapronamonginterventionistsinradiology