European journal of radiology · 2025
Efficiency in radiation protection of a novel exoskeleton-based interventional radiology apron and correlation with conventional aprons.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Apostolou A, Leichert H J, König A M, Owczarek A D, Mahnken A H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In interventional radiology (IR), safeguarding against ionizing radiation is imperative. This study evaluates the comparison of a lead-free exoskeleton-mounted radiation protection apron with an integrated head visor with conventional radiation protection aprons of varied materials. The goal is to contribute insights into optimizing safety for healthcare professionals and patients during IR procedures.
METHODS: The phantom study incorporates a variety of radiation protection aprons: an exoskeleton-mounted lead-free apron with an integrated head visor, a conventional lead apron, a lead- free and a lead-composite apron. The examiner assumed three common working positions (30° left, 0° center, 30° right) during a simulated intervention. A volume tomography cone beam protocol (CBCT) ensured a consistent spectrum of radiation energy. Real-time dosimeters were placed at the eyes, the left axilla, and the pelvis.
RESULTS: The exoskeleton-mounted apron with the integrated head visor demonstrated an average dose reduction of 93.4 % (p < 0.001), outperforming other aprons with shielding capacities only up to 66 % (p < 0.001). The other aprons were deliberately chosen without eye shielding. In the pelvic region, the exoskeleton-mounted apron achieved a 99 % (p < 0.001) dose reduction, with the lead-free apron providing 96 % (p < 0.001) shielding efficacy, and the conventional lead and lead-composite aprons achieving 94 % (p < 0.001) and 90.3 % (p < 0.001), respectively. However, the exoskeleton-mounted apron exhibited a lower dose reduction of 81.3 % (p < 0.001) in the left axilla compared to conventional aprons.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated exoskeleton system demonstrated excellent eye protection through its circumferential head visor and notable reduction in the pelvic dose. However, despite these advantages, the exoskeleton did exhibit a particular deficit in the left axilla in our experimental setup. This research emphasizes the potential of innovative radiation protection solutions while highlighting specific areas that require further improvement.
METHODS: The phantom study incorporates a variety of radiation protection aprons: an exoskeleton-mounted lead-free apron with an integrated head visor, a conventional lead apron, a lead- free and a lead-composite apron. The examiner assumed three common working positions (30° left, 0° center, 30° right) during a simulated intervention. A volume tomography cone beam protocol (CBCT) ensured a consistent spectrum of radiation energy. Real-time dosimeters were placed at the eyes, the left axilla, and the pelvis.
RESULTS: The exoskeleton-mounted apron with the integrated head visor demonstrated an average dose reduction of 93.4 % (p < 0.001), outperforming other aprons with shielding capacities only up to 66 % (p < 0.001). The other aprons were deliberately chosen without eye shielding. In the pelvic region, the exoskeleton-mounted apron achieved a 99 % (p < 0.001) dose reduction, with the lead-free apron providing 96 % (p < 0.001) shielding efficacy, and the conventional lead and lead-composite aprons achieving 94 % (p < 0.001) and 90.3 % (p < 0.001), respectively. However, the exoskeleton-mounted apron exhibited a lower dose reduction of 81.3 % (p < 0.001) in the left axilla compared to conventional aprons.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated exoskeleton system demonstrated excellent eye protection through its circumferential head visor and notable reduction in the pelvic dose. However, despite these advantages, the exoskeleton did exhibit a particular deficit in the left axilla in our experimental setup. This research emphasizes the potential of innovative radiation protection solutions while highlighting specific areas that require further improvement.