Abstract No. 271 - Creating a standardized method of evaluating supplemental radiation protection products and its use in evaluating disposable radiation-reduction drapes

• Published in: Journal of vascular and interventional radiology Vol. 24; no. 4; p. S120
• Main Authors: Bourgeois, A.C., Balius, A., Embry, S., Snidow, J., McKinney, J., Layman, M., Pasciak, A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.04.2013
• ISSN: 1051-0443; 1535-7732
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.01.295

Interventional radiology (IR) procedures expose the performing physician and staff to potentially high radiation exposures, among the highest of all radiation workers. As a result, medical equipment vendors are continually introducing new radiation protection products such as the sterile, disposable radiation-reduction patient drape. Manufacturers of these drapes claim their ability to reduce up to 95% of scattered radiation. However, these claims are often not corroborated in clinical practice due to technique and operator-related factors. We have developed a method for evaluating radiation-reduction in order to delineate their true efficacy and cost effectiveness. This technique requires no special equipment and can be easily managed and organized by a technologist. Two IR physicians were issued a set of radiation monitors in order to evaluate the AngioSystems SorbX lead-free, disposable scatter-reduction drape. Each monitor set included a ring monitor, collar badge, and a badge worn under the apron at the xiphoid level. Monitoring was performed in 90 day alternating increments with and without the use of drapes to establish a control and experimental dataset for each physician. Badge doses for each monitoring period were normalized by total dose-area-product (DAP). Monitoring was achieved in a total of 73 procedures with fluoroscopy time greater than 8 minutes. Physician 1 experienced a 40% reduction in dose and physician 2 experienced a 55% reduction in dose for femoral entry. Neither physician experienced a quantifiable dose reduction for jugular entry procedures. Data analysis suggests that physician 2 had better results due to rigorous use of the hanging leaded-glass shield. The efficacy of supplemental radiation protection devices depends on many factors such as technique, procedure type, and concomitant use of other radiation protection devices. Thus, it may not be cost effective to use devices such as radiation-reduction drapes for all procedures, all patients, or for all physicians. In our case, this study has resulted in limiting use of the drapes to lengthy femoral-entry studies where their use is likely to provide the most dose savings.