Korean J Pain.  2013 Apr;26(2):142-147. 10.3344/kjp.2013.26.2.142.

The Survey about the Degree of Damage of Radiation-Protective Shields in Operation Room

• Ryu JS
• Baek SW
• Jung CH
• Cho SJ
• Jung EG
• Kim HK
• Kim JH

• KMID: 1978658
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2013.26.2.142

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Medical doctors who perform C-arm fluoroscopy-guided procedures are exposed to X-ray radiation. Therefore, radiation-protective shields are recommended to protect these doctors from radiation. For the past several years, these protective shields have sometimes been used without regular inspection. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of damage to radiation-protective shields in the operating room.
METHODS
This study investigated 98 radiation-protective shields in the operation rooms of Konkuk University Medical Center and Jeju National University Hospital. We examined whether these shields were damaged or not with the unaided eye and by fluoroscopy.
RESULTS
There were seventy-one aprons and twenty-seven thyroid protectors in the two university hospitals. Fourteen aprons (19.7%) were damaged, whereas no thyroid protectors (0%) were. Of the twenty-six aprons, which have been used since 2005, eleven (42.3%) were damaged. Of the ten aprons, which have been used since 2008, none (0%) was damaged. Of the twenty-three aprons that have been used since 2009, two (8.7%) of them were damaged. Of the eight aprons used since 2010, one (12.3%) was damaged. Of the four aprons used since 2011, none (0%) of them were damaged. The most common site of damage to the radiation-protective shields was at the waist of the aprons (51%).
CONCLUSIONS
As a result, aprons that have been used for a long period of time can have a higher risk of damage. Radiation-protective shields should be inspected regularly and exchanged for new products for the safety of medical workers.

Keyword

fluoroscopy; radiation exposure; radiation-protective shields

MeSH Terms

Academic Medical Centers
Eye
Fluoroscopy
Hospitals, University
Thyroid Gland

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 C-arm fluoroscopic images of radiation-protective shields. (A) Hole. (B) Cracked. (C) Separated. (D) Collapsed down.

• 

  Fig. 2 Damage site and the rate. The most common damaged site of radiation-protective shields was waist of aprons (40%). (A) One-piece type apron. (B) Kilt of two piece type apron.

• 

  Fig. 3 Degree of utilization of radiation-protective shields. (A) Apron. (B) Thyroid protector. KUMC: Konkuk University Medical Center, JNUH: Jeju National University Hospital. *P < 0.05 Apron versus Thyroid protector. †P < 0.05 Pain clinic versus Surgery.

• 

  Fig. 4 The folding sites of apron according to physician's position. (A) Standing. (B) Sitting. (C) Walking.

Reference

1. Kim TW, Jung JH, Jeon HJ, Yoon KB, Yoon DM. Radiation exposure to physicians during interventional pain procedures. Korean J Pain. 2010; 23:24–27. PMID: 20552069.

2. Le Heron J, Padovani R, Smith I, Czarwinski R. Radiation protection of medical staff. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 76:20–23. PMID: 20656429.

3. Tonnessen BH, Pounds L. Radiation physics. J Vasc Surg. 2011; 53:6S–8S. PMID: 20869192.

4. Mroz TE, Yamashita T, Davros WJ, Lieberman IH. Radiation exposure to the surgeon and the patient during kyphoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008; 21:96–100. PMID: 18391712.

5. Cousins C, Sharp C. Medical interventional procedures-reducing the radiation risks. Clin Radiol. 2004; 59:468–473. PMID: 15145716.

6. Shope TB. Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy. Radiographics. 1996; 16:1195–1199. PMID: 8888398.

7. Schueler BA. Operator shielding: how and why. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010; 13:167–171. PMID: 20723831.

8. Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, Lilley M, Servant R, Reh G. Composite materials for x-ray protection. Health Phys. 1991; 60:661–664. PMID: 2019497.

9. Poletti JL, McLean D. The effect of source to image-receptor distance on effective dose for some common X-ray projections. Br J Radiol. 2005; 78:810–815. PMID: 16110102.

10. Botwin KP, Freeman ED, Gruber RD, Torres-Rames FM, Bouchtas CG, Sanelli JT, et al. Radiation exposure to the physician performing fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections. Pain Physician. 2001; 4:343–348. PMID: 16902680.

11. Hellawell GO, Mutch SJ, Thevendran G, Wells E, Morgan RJ. Radiation exposure and the urologist: what are the risks? J Urol. 2005; 174:948–952. PMID: 16094003.

12. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Moss TL, Pampati V. Radiation exposure to the physician in interventional pain management. Pain Physician. 2002; 5:385–393. PMID: 16886017.

13. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37:1–332.

14. Miller DL, Vañó E, Bartal G, Balter S, Dixon R, Padovani R, et al. Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010; 21:607–615. PMID: 20430294.

15. Singer G. Occupational radiation exposure to the surgeon. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005; 13:69–76. PMID: 15712984.

16. Powys R, Robinson J, Kench PL, Ryan J, Brennan PC. Strict X-ray beam collimation for facial bones examination can increase lens exposure. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85:e497–e505. PMID: 22374279.

17. Cho JH, Kim JY, Kang JE, Park PE, Kim JH, Lim JA, et al. A study to compare the radiation absorbed dose of the C-arm fluoroscopic modes. Korean J Pain. 2011; 24:199–204. PMID: 22220241.

18. Park PE, Park JM, Kang JE, Cho JH, Cho SJ, Kim JH, et al. Radiation safety and education in the applicants of the final test for the expert of pain medicine. Korean J Pain. 2012; 25:16–21. PMID: 22259711.