Loading…

Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?

Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. Single-center, prospective, rando...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Heliyon 2016-05, Vol.2 (5), p.e00117, Article e00117
Main Authors: Hyun, Seung-Jae, Kim, Ki-Jeong, Jahng, Tae-Ahn, Kim, Hyun-Jib
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813
container_end_page
container_issue 5
container_start_page e00117
container_title Heliyon
container_volume 2
creator Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
description Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. Single-center, prospective, randomized study of adult patients with degenerative lumbar disorders, scheduled to undergo posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Instrumentation was performed in either a robot-assisted, minimally invasive approach (RO) or a conventional, fluoroscopically-assisted, open approach (FA). Outcome measures included the quantitative measurement of the surgeon’s actual exposure to radiation, as recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) worn both above and under the 0.5 mm thyroid and trunk lead protectors. Sixty four patients were included in this study, 34 in the RO cohort and 30 in the FA cohort. The radiation blocked by the aprons, represented as the ratio of the under-apron to above-apron TLDs, averaged 37.1% (range 25.4–48.3%, 95% confidence interval between 30.6–43.6%). In the RO cohort, the average per-screw radiation dose and time were 51.9% and 73.7% lower, respectively, than the per screw exposure in the FA cohort. The 0.5 mm lead aprons blocked just over one third of the radiation scattered towards the surgeon. Use of robotic-guidance in a minimally invasive approach provided for a reduction of 62.5% of the overall radiation the surgeon was exposed to during open conventional approach. We conclude that reduced radiation use (e.g. by using robotic guidance) is a more effective strategy for minimizing exposure to radiation than reliance on protection by lead aprons, and recommend utilization of practices and technologies that reduce the surgical team’s routine exposure to X-rays.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_d42a194d58a14552ab38e469d8382199</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2405844015305867</els_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d42a194d58a14552ab38e469d8382199</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>27441288</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1OHDEQhS1EBAg4QiJfYCYut93t3oAQIgFppGzC2vJPecaTpj1yN4PmBqxzxJwkhgYEK1b-e--rcj1CvgKbA4P6-3q-wi7uUj_n5ThHxgCaPXLEBZMzJQTbf7c_JKfDsGZFI1XdNtUBOeSNEMCVOiKLqxCii9i7HU2Bdmg8NZuc-oHGntouuT-xX9JsfDRjTD399_iXrtIDLZoR3Ri3SE1GOq5wd35CvgTTDXj6sh6T2x9Xvy-vZ4tfP28uLxYzV7NqnEGNCppgmSxtNC44CdIJxY2xNQMu28Zh29SlQ2nBeRmkddIoUXmwNiiojsnNxPXJrPUmxzuTdzqZqJ8vUl5qk8foOtRecAOt8FIZEFJyYyuFom69qhSHti2ss4m1ubd36B32YzbdB-jHlz6u9DJttWhFzUEVgJwALqdhyBjevMD0U1p6rV_S0k9p6Smt4vv2vvCb6zWbIjifBFhGuY2Y9fAcFPqYy-TLX-MnJf4DqqCp2g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Hyun, Seung-Jae ; Kim, Ki-Jeong ; Jahng, Tae-Ahn ; Kim, Hyun-Jib</creator><creatorcontrib>Hyun, Seung-Jae ; Kim, Ki-Jeong ; Jahng, Tae-Ahn ; Kim, Hyun-Jib</creatorcontrib><description>Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. Single-center, prospective, randomized study of adult patients with degenerative lumbar disorders, scheduled to undergo posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Instrumentation was performed in either a robot-assisted, minimally invasive approach (RO) or a conventional, fluoroscopically-assisted, open approach (FA). Outcome measures included the quantitative measurement of the surgeon’s actual exposure to radiation, as recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) worn both above and under the 0.5 mm thyroid and trunk lead protectors. Sixty four patients were included in this study, 34 in the RO cohort and 30 in the FA cohort. The radiation blocked by the aprons, represented as the ratio of the under-apron to above-apron TLDs, averaged 37.1% (range 25.4–48.3%, 95% confidence interval between 30.6–43.6%). In the RO cohort, the average per-screw radiation dose and time were 51.9% and 73.7% lower, respectively, than the per screw exposure in the FA cohort. The 0.5 mm lead aprons blocked just over one third of the radiation scattered towards the surgeon. Use of robotic-guidance in a minimally invasive approach provided for a reduction of 62.5% of the overall radiation the surgeon was exposed to during open conventional approach. We conclude that reduced radiation use (e.g. by using robotic guidance) is a more effective strategy for minimizing exposure to radiation than reliance on protection by lead aprons, and recommend utilization of practices and technologies that reduce the surgical team’s routine exposure to X-rays.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2405-8440</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2405-8440</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27441288</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Medicine</subject><ispartof>Heliyon, 2016-05, Vol.2 (5), p.e00117, Article e00117</ispartof><rights>2016 The Authors</rights><rights>2016 The Authors 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946218/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844015305867$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,3548,27923,27924,45779,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27441288$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hyun, Seung-Jae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Ki-Jeong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jahng, Tae-Ahn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hyun-Jib</creatorcontrib><title>Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?</title><title>Heliyon</title><addtitle>Heliyon</addtitle><description>Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. Single-center, prospective, randomized study of adult patients with degenerative lumbar disorders, scheduled to undergo posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Instrumentation was performed in either a robot-assisted, minimally invasive approach (RO) or a conventional, fluoroscopically-assisted, open approach (FA). Outcome measures included the quantitative measurement of the surgeon’s actual exposure to radiation, as recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) worn both above and under the 0.5 mm thyroid and trunk lead protectors. Sixty four patients were included in this study, 34 in the RO cohort and 30 in the FA cohort. The radiation blocked by the aprons, represented as the ratio of the under-apron to above-apron TLDs, averaged 37.1% (range 25.4–48.3%, 95% confidence interval between 30.6–43.6%). In the RO cohort, the average per-screw radiation dose and time were 51.9% and 73.7% lower, respectively, than the per screw exposure in the FA cohort. The 0.5 mm lead aprons blocked just over one third of the radiation scattered towards the surgeon. Use of robotic-guidance in a minimally invasive approach provided for a reduction of 62.5% of the overall radiation the surgeon was exposed to during open conventional approach. We conclude that reduced radiation use (e.g. by using robotic guidance) is a more effective strategy for minimizing exposure to radiation than reliance on protection by lead aprons, and recommend utilization of practices and technologies that reduce the surgical team’s routine exposure to X-rays.</description><subject>Medicine</subject><issn>2405-8440</issn><issn>2405-8440</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1OHDEQhS1EBAg4QiJfYCYut93t3oAQIgFppGzC2vJPecaTpj1yN4PmBqxzxJwkhgYEK1b-e--rcj1CvgKbA4P6-3q-wi7uUj_n5ThHxgCaPXLEBZMzJQTbf7c_JKfDsGZFI1XdNtUBOeSNEMCVOiKLqxCii9i7HU2Bdmg8NZuc-oHGntouuT-xX9JsfDRjTD399_iXrtIDLZoR3Ri3SE1GOq5wd35CvgTTDXj6sh6T2x9Xvy-vZ4tfP28uLxYzV7NqnEGNCppgmSxtNC44CdIJxY2xNQMu28Zh29SlQ2nBeRmkddIoUXmwNiiojsnNxPXJrPUmxzuTdzqZqJ8vUl5qk8foOtRecAOt8FIZEFJyYyuFom69qhSHti2ss4m1ubd36B32YzbdB-jHlz6u9DJttWhFzUEVgJwALqdhyBjevMD0U1p6rV_S0k9p6Smt4vv2vvCb6zWbIjifBFhGuY2Y9fAcFPqYy-TLX-MnJf4DqqCp2g</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Hyun, Seung-Jae</creator><creator>Kim, Ki-Jeong</creator><creator>Jahng, Tae-Ahn</creator><creator>Kim, Hyun-Jib</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?</title><author>Hyun, Seung-Jae ; Kim, Ki-Jeong ; Jahng, Tae-Ahn ; Kim, Hyun-Jib</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Medicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hyun, Seung-Jae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Ki-Jeong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jahng, Tae-Ahn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hyun-Jib</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Heliyon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hyun, Seung-Jae</au><au>Kim, Ki-Jeong</au><au>Jahng, Tae-Ahn</au><au>Kim, Hyun-Jib</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?</atitle><jtitle>Heliyon</jtitle><addtitle>Heliyon</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e00117</spage><pages>e00117-</pages><artnum>e00117</artnum><issn>2405-8440</issn><eissn>2405-8440</eissn><abstract>Despite the firmly established occupational risk of exposure to X-rays, they are used extensively in spine surgeries. Shielding by lead aprons is the most common protective practice. We quantified the level of their radiation blocking ability in a real-life setting. Single-center, prospective, randomized study of adult patients with degenerative lumbar disorders, scheduled to undergo posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Instrumentation was performed in either a robot-assisted, minimally invasive approach (RO) or a conventional, fluoroscopically-assisted, open approach (FA). Outcome measures included the quantitative measurement of the surgeon’s actual exposure to radiation, as recorded by thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLD) worn both above and under the 0.5 mm thyroid and trunk lead protectors. Sixty four patients were included in this study, 34 in the RO cohort and 30 in the FA cohort. The radiation blocked by the aprons, represented as the ratio of the under-apron to above-apron TLDs, averaged 37.1% (range 25.4–48.3%, 95% confidence interval between 30.6–43.6%). In the RO cohort, the average per-screw radiation dose and time were 51.9% and 73.7% lower, respectively, than the per screw exposure in the FA cohort. The 0.5 mm lead aprons blocked just over one third of the radiation scattered towards the surgeon. Use of robotic-guidance in a minimally invasive approach provided for a reduction of 62.5% of the overall radiation the surgeon was exposed to during open conventional approach. We conclude that reduced radiation use (e.g. by using robotic guidance) is a more effective strategy for minimizing exposure to radiation than reliance on protection by lead aprons, and recommend utilization of practices and technologies that reduce the surgical team’s routine exposure to X-rays.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>27441288</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2405-8440
ispartof Heliyon, 2016-05, Vol.2 (5), p.e00117, Article e00117
issn 2405-8440
2405-8440
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_d42a194d58a14552ab38e469d8382199
source ScienceDirect Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Medicine
title Efficiency of lead aprons in blocking radiation − how protective are they?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T08%3A59%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficiency%20of%20lead%20aprons%20in%20blocking%20radiation%20%E2%88%92%20how%20protective%20are%20they?&rft.jtitle=Heliyon&rft.au=Hyun,%20Seung-Jae&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e00117&rft.pages=e00117-&rft.artnum=e00117&rft.issn=2405-8440&rft.eissn=2405-8440&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00117&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_doaj_%3E27441288%3C/pubmed_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-16e817fb057447cfc515c482aab6012597ce9764125b1cd5f5bc5a843d1bbf813%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/27441288&rfr_iscdi=true