These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effectiveness of pelvic lead blanket to reduce the doses to eye lens and hands of interventional cardiologists and assistant nurses.
    Author: Grabowicz W, Domienik-Andrzejewska J, Masiarek K, Górnik T, Grycewicz T, Brodecki M, Lubiński A.
    Journal: J Radiol Prot; 2017 Sep; 37(3):715-727. PubMed ID: 28631620.
    Abstract:
    The aim of the present study is to analyse quantitatively the potential reduction of doses to the eye lens and the hands of an operator and a nurse by the use of a pelvic lead blanket during coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) procedures. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to assess dose levels to the left eye lens and fingers on both hands of both physician and nurses during single procedures performed with or without the lead blanket. The measurements were carried out at one medical centre and include dosimetric data from 100 procedures. Additional measurements including physician's and patient's doses were made on phantoms in the laboratory. In order to determine the reduction potential of the lead blanket, the doses normalized to DAP (Dose-Area Product) corresponding to the same position of dosimeter were compared against each other for both procedure categories (with and without protection). There was no statistically significant decrease observed in physicians' and nurses' eye lens doses, nor in doses normalized to DAP due to the use of the lead pelvic shield in clinic. However, some trend in reducing the eye lens doses by this shield can be observed. Regarding finger doses, the differences are statistically significant but only for physicians. The mean DAP-normalised doses to the eye lens and left and right finger of physicians, in the presence of a ceiling-suspended transparent lead shield, were 2.24e-5 ± 1.41e-5 mSv/μGym2, 2.31e-4 ± 1.21e-4 mSv/μGym2, and 2.60e-5 ± 1.57e-5 mSv/μGym2 for standard procedures performed without the lead blanket, and 1.77e-5 ± 1.17e-5 mSv/μGym2, 1.70e-4 ± 1.01e-4 mSv/μGym2, and 1.86e-5 ± 1.13e-5 mSv/μGym2 for procedures performed with it. A comparison of the results from the laboratory and the clinic shows that they are consistent regarding the eye lens, while for fingers it suggests that the dose reduction properties of the lead shield are related to the physician's work technique and both patient and lead blanket sizes or its positioning. The highest degree of reduction is observed for cranial and caudal projections together with the use of a patient-adjustable lead blanket; about a 2-fold decrease in finger doses is expected for optimum conditions. However, the laboratory measurements suggest that the use of lead blanket might slightly increase the patient dose, but only when specific projections are constantly used. This limitation should be considered by cardiologists during clinical work if this protection is used. In the light of the presented results, the ceiling-suspended transparent lead shield and the lead glasses seem to be the preferred way to reduce the doses to the eye lens, compared to the lead blanket.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]