Journal of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회지)

The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of a Curtain-Type Radiation Protection Device for Veterinary Interventional Procedures

  • Minsik Choi (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Jaepung Han (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Changgyu Lim (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Jiwoon Park (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Sojin Kim (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Uhjin Kim (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Jinhwa Chang (Korea animal medical center) ;
  • Dongwoo Chang (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Namsoon Lee (Section of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University)
  • Received : 2024.05.20
  • Accepted : 2024.06.12
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The standard radiation protection method in the angiography suite involves the use of a thyroid shield, a lead apron, and lead glasses. However, exposure to substantial amounts of ionizing radiation can cause cataracts, tumors, and skin erythema. A newly developed curtain-type radiation protection device consists of a curtain drape composed of a five-layer bismuth and lead acrylic head-shielding plate, with both bearing an equivalent 0.25 mm lead thickness. In this study, a quality assurance phantom was used as the patient to create radiation scatter from the radiographic source, and an anthropomorphic mannequin phantom was used as the interventionalist to measure the radiation dose at seven different anatomical locations. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure the radiation dose. The experimental groups consisted of all-sided or one-sided curtain set-ups, the presence or absence of a conventional shielding system, and the orientation of beam irradiation. Consequently, the curtain-type radiation protection device exhibited better radiation protection range and capabilities than conventional radiation protection systems, especially in safeguarding the forehead, eyes, arms, and feet, with minimal radiation exposure. Moreover, the mean shielding ratios of the conventional shielding system and curtain-type radiation protection device were measured at 51.94% and 93.86%, respectively. Additionally, no significant decrease in the radiation protection range or capability was observed, even with changes in the beam orientation or one-sided protection. Compared with a conventional shielding system, the curtain-type radiation protection device decreased radiation exposure doses and improved comfort. Therefore, it is a potential new radiation protection device for veterinary interventional procedures.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the research grant of the Chungbuk National University in 2023.

References

  1. Andrew S, Abdelmonem MR, Kohli S, Dabke H. Evaluation of back pain and lead apron use among staff at a district general hospital. Cureus 2021; 13: e18859. 
  2. Cousin AJ, Lawdahl RB, Chakraborty DP, Koehler RE. The case for radioprotective eyewear/facewear. Practical implications and suggestions. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 688-692.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198708000-00012
  3. Dorey S, Gray L, Tootell A, Higgins R, Al-Islam S, Baxter H, et al. Radiation protection value to the operator from augmented reality smart glasses in interventional fluoroscopy procedures using phantoms. Radiography (Lond) 2019; 25: 301-307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.02.008
  4. Guni E, Hellmann I, Wucherer M, Knappe-Kagan P, Hartmann J, Lell M, et al. Effectiveness of radiation protection caps for lowering dose to the brain and the eye lenses. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2021; 44: 1260-1265.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02831-3
  5. Haussen DC, Van Der Bom IM, Nogueira RG. A prospective case control comparison of the Zerogravity system versus a standard lead apron as radiation protection strategy in neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2016; 8: 1052-1055.  https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012038
  6. International Commission on Radiological Preotection (ICRP). 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 60. Ann ICRP 1991; 21: 1-201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6453(91)90065-O
  7. International Commission on Radiological Preotection (ICRP). The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37: 1-332. 
  8. International Commission on Radiological Preotection (ICRP). Radiological protection in veterinary practice. ICRP publication 153. Ann ICRP 2022; 51: 9-95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01466453221142702
  9. Johansen S, Hauge IHR, Hogg P, England A, Lanca L, Gunn C, et al. Are antimony-bismuth aprons as efficient as lead rubber aprons in providing shielding against scattered radiation? J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2018; 49: 201-206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2018.02.002
  10. Kaplan DJ, Patel JN, Liporace FA, Yoon RS. Intraoperative radiation safety in orthopaedics: a review of the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle. Patient Saf Surg 2016; 10: 27. 
  11. Katsarou M, Zwiebel B, Chowdhury RP, Shames M, Berger T, Przybyla B, et al. Experimental analysis of radiation protection offered by a novel exoskeleton-based radiation protection system versus conventional lead aprons. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2023; 34: 1345-1352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2023.03.033
  12. Kirkwood ML, Klein A, Guild J, Arbique G, Xi Y, Tsai S, et al. Novel modification to leaded eyewear results in significant operator eye radiation dose reduction. J Vasc Surg 2020; 72: 2139-2144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2020.02.049
  13. Marichal DA, Anwar T, Kirsch D, Clements J, Carlson L, Savage C, et al. Comparison of a suspended radiation protection system versus standard lead apron for radiation exposure of a simulated interventionalist. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 437-442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.12.016
  14. Park MH, Kwon DM. Measurement of apron shielding rate for X-ray and gamma-ray. J Radiol Sci Technol 2007; 30: 245-250. 
  15. Picano E, Vano E, Domenici L, Bottai M, Thierry-Chef I. Cancer and non-cancer brain and eye effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure. BMC Cancer 2012; 12: 157. 
  16. Savage C, Seale TM IV, Shaw CJ, Angela BP, Marichal D, Rees CR. Evaluation of a suspended personal radiation protection system vs. conventional apron and shields in clinical interventional procedures. Open J Radiol 2013; 3: 143-151. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojrad.2013.33024