Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Radiation Protection | Original Article

Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): a 4-year longitudinal follow-up study

Authors: Pieter-Jan Kellens, An De Hauwere, Tim Gossye, Sven Peire, Ingrid Tournicourt, Luc Strubbe, Jan De Pooter, Klaus Bacher

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE) such as lead aprons minimises radiation exposure of operators using X-ray systems. However, PRPE might be prone to cracks in the attenuating layer resulting in inadequate radiation protection. This study aims to investigate the prevalence, qualification and quantification of PRPE integrity during a longitudinal follow-up study.

Methods

All PRPE of a large, general hospital was evaluated yearly in the period 2018–2021. The equipment was inspected on a tele-operated X-ray table, and tears were qualified and quantified using an X-ray opaque ruler. Rejection criteria of Lambert & McKeon, with an extra rejection criterion of 15 mm² for individual tears, were applied to accept or reject further use of the PRPE.

Results

Over the 4-year follow-up period, a total of 1011 pieces of PRPE were evaluated. In total, 47.3% of the PRPE showed tears of which 31% exceeded the mentioned rejection criteria. Remarkably, of the 287 newly registered pieces of PRPE, 6.0% showed tears in the first year of use of which 88.2% needed to be rejected. Also, 48% of the repaired PRPE was rejected again in the consecutive year.

Conclusions

PRPE is prone to cracks. Up to 50% of PRPE showed tears and cracks resulting in 31% rejections. Newly purchased PRPE is not guaranteed to remain free of cracks and tears in the first year of use. Repair does not guarantee a long-term solution for prolonging the lifespan. Regular X-ray-based integrity analysis of PRPE is needed to ensure adequate radioprotection for operators using X-ray systems.

Andreassi MG, Sacca S, Carpeggiani C et al (2016) High prevalence of cataract and other subclinical eye abnormalities in cardiac catheterization lab workers. Eur Heart J 37:1034

Fazel R (2014) Approaches to enhancing radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association (vol 130, pg 1730, 2014). Circulation 130(19):E172-E. https://doi.org/10.1161/Cir.0000000000000138CrossRef

Biso SMR, Vidovich MI (2020) Radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Thorac Dis 12(4):1648–1655. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.12.86CrossRef

Sanchez RM, Vano E, Salinas P, Gonzalo N, Escaned J, Fernandez JM (2021) High filtration in interventional practices reduces patient radiation doses but not always scatter radiation doses. Br J Radiol 94(1117):20200774. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20200774CrossRef

Vano E, Casanueva RMS, Soto JMF (2020) Helping to know if you are properly protected while working in interventional cardiology. J Radiol Prot 40(4):1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/abc325CrossRef

McCaffrey JP, Shen H, Downton B, Mainegra-Hing E (2007) Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments. Med Phys 34(2):530–537. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2426404CrossRef

Peters SMB, Zweers D, de Lange F, Mourik JEM (2017) Lead composite vs. nonlead protective garments: which are better? A multivendor comparison. Radiat Prot Dosim 175(4):460–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw373CrossRef

Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, Lilley M, Servant R, Reh G (1991) Composite-materials for X-ray protection. Health Phys 60(5):661–664. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199105000-00004CrossRef

Jones AK, Wagner LK (2013) On the (f)utility of measuring the lead equivalence of protective garments. Med Phys. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4805098CrossRef

10.

Aral N, Duch MA, Ardanuy M (2020) Material characterization and Monte Carlo simulation of lead and non-lead X-ray shielding materials. Radiat Phys Chem 2020:174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2020.108892CrossRef

11.

Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter S et al (2018) Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21772CrossRef

12.

Goldstein JA (2015) Orthopedic afflictions in the interventional laboratory: tales from the working wounded. J Am Coll Cardiol 65(8):827–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.020CrossRef

13.

Bawazeer O (2021) Quality assurance of personal radiation shield for kilovoltage photon: a multicentre experience. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 14:1263–1270. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S298783CrossRef

14.

Oppliger-Schäfer HWR (2009) Quality assurance of X-ray protection clothing at the University Hospital Basel. In: Annual conference of SSRMP

15.

Lambert K, McKeon T (2001) Inspection of lead aprons: criteria for rejection. Health Phys 80(5 SUPPL.):S67–S69. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200105001-00008CrossRef

16.

Wickham R et al (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 4(43):1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686CrossRef

17.

Fakhoury E, Provencher JA, Subramaniam R, Finlay DJ (2019) Not all lightweight lead aprons and thyroid shields are alike. J Vasc Surg 70(1):246–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.055CrossRef

18.

Zuguchi M, Chida K, Taura M, Inaba Y, Ebata A, Yamada S (2008) Usefulness of non-lead aprons in radiation protection for physicians performing interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim 131(4):531–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn244CrossRef

19.

Christodoulou EG, Goodsitt MM, Larson SC, Darner KL, Satti J, Chan HP (2003) Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter. Med Phys 30(6):1033–1038. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1573207CrossRef

20.

Finnerty M, Brennan PC (2005) Protective aprons in imaging departments: manufacturer stated lead equivalence values require validation. Eur Radiol 15(7):1477–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2571-2CrossRef

21.

Heithaus RE, Onofrio A, Weir V, Rees C (2016) Can aprons be properly evaluated for their protective quality without in-house validation? J Vasc Interv Radiol 27(2):e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.01.014CrossRef

22.

Muir S, McLeod R, Dove R (2005) Light-weight lead aprons–light on weight, protection or labelling accuracy? Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 28(2):128–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178704CrossRef

23.

Oyar O, Kişlalioǧlu A (2012) How protective are the lead aprons we use against ionizing radiation? Diagn Interv Radiol 18(2):147–152. https://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.4526-11.1CrossRef

24.

Matsuda M, Suzuki T (2016) Evaluation of lead aprons and their maintenance and management at our hospital. J Anesth 30(3):518–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-016-2140-2CrossRef

25.

Glaze S, LeBlanc AD, Bushong SC (1984) Defects in new protective aprons. Radiology 152(1):217–218. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.152.1.6729117CrossRef

26.

Eder H, Schlattl H (2021) Shielding effectiveness of X-ray protective garment. Phys Med 82:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.01.081CrossRef

27.

Schmid E, Panzer W, Schlattl H, Eder H (2012) Emission of fluorescent x-radiation from non-lead based shielding materials of protective clothing: a radiobiological problem? J Radiol Prot 32(3):N129–N139. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/32/3/N129CrossRef

28.

Uthoff H, Benenati MJ, Katzen BT et al (2014) Lightweight bilayer barium sulfate-bismuth oxide composite thyroid collars for superior radiation protection in fluoroscopy-guided interventions: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Radiology 270(2):601–606. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122834CrossRef

29.

Eder H, Schlattl H, Hoeschen C (2010) X-ray protective clothing: does DIN 6857–1 allow an objective comparison between lead-free and lead-composite materials? Rofo 182(5):422–428. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1110000CrossRef

30.

Crowhurst JA, Whitby M, Aroney N, Dautov R, Walters D, Raffel O (2021) Primary operator radiation dose in the cardiac catheter laboratory. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20200018CrossRef

31.

Shousha HA, Rabie N, Hassan GM (2011) Experimental investigation of commercially available lead composite aprons used for diagnostic X-rays. Radiat Eff Defect Solids 166(12):935–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10420150.2011.559237CrossRef

32.

Han DH, Won JH, Han MS, Baek CH, Kim YH (2019) Comparative study of Monte Carlo simulation codes for performance evaluation of radiation shielding devices. New Phys Sae Mulli 69(10):1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.69.1027CrossRef

33.

Jones A, Pasciak A (2017) Comparison of air kerma and HP(10) for quantifying transmission through protective garments. Med Phys 44(6):2763. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12304CrossRef

34.

Stam W, Pillay M (2008) Inspection of lead aprons: a practical rejection model. Health Phys 95(2):S133–S136. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Hp.0000314763.19226.86CrossRef

Title: Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): a 4-year longitudinal follow-up study
Authors: Pieter-Jan Kellens
An De Hauwere
Tim Gossye
Sven Peire
Ingrid Tournicourt
Luc Strubbe
Jan De Pooter
Klaus Bacher
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Keyword: Radiation Protection
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01323-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): a 4-year longitudinal follow-up study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis: the role of whole-body MRI

Evaluation of contrast-induced acute kidney injury using IVIM and DKI MRI in a rat model of diabetic nephropathy

MRI appearances of hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: a retrospective study of 57 patients

Communicating with patients in the age of online portals—challenges and opportunities on the horizon for radiologists

Arterial spin labeling of nasopharyngeal carcinoma shows early therapy response

A proposed magnetic resonance imaging grading system for the spectrum of central neonatal parasagittal hypoxic–ischaemic brain injury