Research Article| Volume 21, ISSUE 1, P7-15, March 2018

Download started.


Get the Lead off Our Backs!

Published:February 02, 2018DOI:
      Many interventionalists face physical challenges almost daily for years or decades. The burden of assuming awkward positions while carrying extra weight can take its toll on the musculoskeletal system to such an extent that the career is ended or modified to exclude procedural aspects. The proliferation of lighter aprons has unfortunately resulted in reduced protection with poor correlation of protection to labeling due to the inadequacies of testing methods for nonlead materials. The protective quality of the non-leads is not superior to lead-containing composites on a weight basis, and the user no longer knows how well they are protected unless buying aprons containing lead. Various useful methods and shields that may reduce radiation exposure are supported by the floor, ceiling, table, or patient. The suspended personal radiation protection system is a recent development which provides substantially greater radiation protection than conventional lead aprons combined with other shields, while also taking all of the weight off of the operator. It is composed of an expansive and thick (1 mm Pb equiv) apron with a large face-shield to protect the neck, head, and eyes, and is suspended overhead to provide motion in the x, y, and z planes. Exposures may also be substantially reduced by leaving the area during acquisition sequences and use of power injectors.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Techniques in Vascular & Interventional Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Schueler B.A.
        • Vrieze T.J.
        • Bjarnason H.
        • et al.
        An investigation of operator exposure in interventional radiology.
        Radiographics. 2006; 26: 1533-1541
        • Ross A.M.
        • Segal J.
        • Borenstein D.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of spinal disc disease among interventional cardiologists.
        Am J Cardiol. 1997; 79: 68-70
        • Birnie D.
        • Healey J.S.
        • Krahn A.D.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and risk factors for cervical and lumbar spondylosis in interventional electrophysiologists.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2011; 22: 957-960
        • Orme N.M.
        • Rihal C.S.
        • Gulati R.
        • et al.
        Occupational health hazards of working in the interventional laboratory.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65: 820-826
        • Klein L.W.
        • Tra Y.
        • Garratt K.N.
        • et al.
        Occupational health hazards of interventional cardiologist in the current decade.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 86: 913-924
        • Lichliter A.
        • Weir V.
        • Heithaus R.E.
        • et al.
        Clinical evaluation of protective garments with respect to garment characteristics and manufacturer label information.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017; 28: 148-155
        • Weissenborn M.
        • Heithaus E.
        • Weir V.
        • et al.
        Can aprons be properly evaluated for their protective quality without in-house validation?.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016; 27: 1933-1935
        • Lie Ø.Ø.
        • Paulsen G.U.
        • Wøhni T.
        Assessment of effective dose and dose to the lens of the eye for the interventional cardiologist.
        Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 132: 313-318
        • Rothmore P.
        Lead aprons, radiographers, and discomfort: A pilot study.
        J Occup health Saf Aust N Z. 2002; 18: 357-366
        • Brateman L.
        The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents.
        Radiographics. 1999; 19: 1037-1055
      1. International Electrotechnical Commission [Internet]. c2014. [cited 2014 Sept 24]. Available from:!opendocument&preview=1

        • Haussen D.C.
        • Van Der Bom I.M.
        • Nogueira R.G.
        A prospective case control comparison of the ZeroGravity system versus standard lead apron as radiation protection strategy in neuroendovascular procedures.
        J Neurointerv Surg. 2016; 8: 1052-1055
        • Savage C.
        • Seale T.M.
        • Shaw C.J.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of a suspended personal radiation protection system vs. conventional apron shields in clinical interventional procedures.
        Open J Radiol. 2013; 3: 143-151
        • Gipson S.
        • Weir V.
        • Shurafa M.
        • et al.
        The effects of attenuating head caps and other common lead equivalent shields on operator brain exposures in the interventional environment.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017; 28: S183
        • Marshall N.W.
        • Faulkner K.
        • Clarke P.
        An investigation into the effect of protective devices on the dose to radiosensitive organs in the head and neck.
        Br J Radiol. 1992; 65: 799-802
        • Cousin A.J.
        • Lawdahi R.B.
        • Chakraborty D.P.
        • et al.
        The case for radioprotective eyewear/facewear: Practical implications and suggestions.
        Invest Radiol. 1987; 22: 688-692
        • Ray M.J.
        • Mohammad F.
        • Baylor W.B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of fluoroscopic operator eye exposures when working from femoral region, side, or head of patient.
        Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2013; 26: 243-246
        • Miller D.L.
        • Vano E.
        • Bartal G.
        • et al.
        Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: A joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of Europe and the society of interventional radiology.
        Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2010; 33: 230-239
        • Maeder M.
        • Brunner-La Rocca H.P.
        • Wolber T.
        • et al.
        Impact of a lead glass screen on scatter radiation to eyes and hands in interventional cardiologists.
        Cathet Cardiovasc Interv. 2006; 67: 18-23
        • Vano E.
        • Gonzalez L.
        • Guibelalde E.
        • et al.
        Radiation exposure to medical staff in interventional and cardiac radiology.
        Br J Radiol. 1998; 71: 954-960
        • Kuon E.
        • Günther M.
        • Gefeller O.
        • et al.
        Standardization of occupational dose to patient DAP enables reliable assessment of radiation-protection devices in invasive cardiology.
        Rofo. 2003; 175: 1545-1550
        • Thornton R.H.
        • Dauer L.T.
        • Altamirano J.P.
        • et al.
        Comparing strategies for operator eye protection in the interventional radiology suite.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010; : 1703-1707
        • Williams J.R.
        The interdependence of staff and patient doses in interventional radiology.
        Br J Radiol. 1997; 70: 498-503
        • Marx V.M.
        • Niklason L.
        • Mauger E.
        Occupational radiation exposure to interventional radiologists: A prospective study.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1992; 3: 597-606
        • Kruger R.
        • Faciszewski T.
        Radiation dose reduction to medical staff during vertebroplasty: A review of techniques and methods to mitigate occupational dose.
        Spine. 2003; 28: 1608-1613
        • Germano J.J.
        • Day G.
        • Gregorious D.
        • et al.
        A novel radiation protection drape reduces radiation exposure during fluoroscopy guided electrophysiology procedures.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2005; 17: 469-472
        • Musallam A.
        • Volis I.
        • Dadaev S.
        • et al.
        A randomized study comparing the use of a pelvic lead shield during trans-radial interventions: Threefold decrease in radiation to the operator but double exposure to the patient.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 85: 1165-1170