Go Back
This abstract was viewed 126 times

Original research article


A Study on the Use of Radiation-Protective Apron among Interventionists in Radiology.

Roshan Samuel LivingstoneAnna VargheseShyamkumar N Keshava
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
Date of Submission: 11-May-2018, Date of Acceptance: 24-Jun-2018, Date of Web Publication: 24-Aug-2018.
Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Shyamkumar N. Keshava

Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore ‑ 632 004, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: aparna_shyam@yahoo.com

Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Shyamkumar N. Keshava

Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore ‑ 632 004, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: aparna_shyam@yahoo.com

DOI: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_34_18 Facebook Twitter Google Linkedin

ABSTRACT



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 (Pbeq) aprons; 15.4% with 0.25 mm Pbeq; about 5.5% with 0.35 mm Pbeq 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.
Keywords: Lead apron, lead equivalence, physical strain, radiation safety

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.