Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2011
Comparison of a suspended radiation protection system versus standard lead apron for radiation exposure of a simulated interventionalist.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marichal Daniel A, Anwar Temoor, Kirsch David, Clements Jessica, Carlson Luke, Savage Clare, Rees Chet R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the radiation protective characteristics of a system designed to enhance operator protection while eliminating weight to the body and allowing freedom of motion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation doses to a mock interventionalist were measured with calibrated dosimeters in a clinical interventional suite. A standard lead apron (SLA; Pb equivalent, 0.5 mm) was compared with a suspended radiation protection system (ZeroGravity; Zgrav) that shields from the top of the head to the calves (except the right arm and left forearm) with a complex overhead motion system that eliminates weight on the operator and allows freedom of motion. Zgrav included a suspended lead apron with increased lead equivalency, greater length, proximal left arm and shoulder coverage, and a wraparound face shield of 0.5 mm Pb equivalency. A 26-cm-thick Lucite stack (ie, mock patient) created scatter during 10 controlled angiography sequences of 120 exposures each. Parameters included a field of view of 40 cm, table height of 94 cm, 124 cm from the tube to image intensifier, 50 cm from the image center to operator, 66 kVp, and 466-470 mA.
RESULTS: Under identical conditions, average doses (SLA vs Zgrav) were 264 versus 3.4 (ratio, 78) to left axilla (P < .001), 456 versus 10.2 (ratio, 45) to left eye (P < .001), 379.4 versus 6.6 (ratio, 57) to right eye (P < .005), and 18.8 versus 1.2 (ratio, 16) to gonad (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to a conventional lead apron, the Zgrav system provided a 16-78-fold decrease in radiation exposure for a mock interventionalist in a simulated clinical setting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation doses to a mock interventionalist were measured with calibrated dosimeters in a clinical interventional suite. A standard lead apron (SLA; Pb equivalent, 0.5 mm) was compared with a suspended radiation protection system (ZeroGravity; Zgrav) that shields from the top of the head to the calves (except the right arm and left forearm) with a complex overhead motion system that eliminates weight on the operator and allows freedom of motion. Zgrav included a suspended lead apron with increased lead equivalency, greater length, proximal left arm and shoulder coverage, and a wraparound face shield of 0.5 mm Pb equivalency. A 26-cm-thick Lucite stack (ie, mock patient) created scatter during 10 controlled angiography sequences of 120 exposures each. Parameters included a field of view of 40 cm, table height of 94 cm, 124 cm from the tube to image intensifier, 50 cm from the image center to operator, 66 kVp, and 466-470 mA.
RESULTS: Under identical conditions, average doses (SLA vs Zgrav) were 264 versus 3.4 (ratio, 78) to left axilla (P < .001), 456 versus 10.2 (ratio, 45) to left eye (P < .001), 379.4 versus 6.6 (ratio, 57) to right eye (P < .005), and 18.8 versus 1.2 (ratio, 16) to gonad (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to a conventional lead apron, the Zgrav system provided a 16-78-fold decrease in radiation exposure for a mock interventionalist in a simulated clinical setting.