Omnia Tajelsir Abdalla Osman, Sara Al Balushi, Salaheddin Omran Arafa, Murad Al Khani, Jassim Al Suwaidi, Fahad Alkindi
{"title":"辐射屏蔽零重力与铅围裙在冠状动脉造影和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的比较评价","authors":"Omnia Tajelsir Abdalla Osman, Sara Al Balushi, Salaheddin Omran Arafa, Murad Al Khani, Jassim Al Suwaidi, Fahad Alkindi","doi":"10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Ensuring safety from radiation in catheterization labs is critical due to the cumulative nature of radiation exposure. This study compares the effectiveness of Zero Gravity (ZG) and conventional Lead Apron shields in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Over six months, radiation exposure was assessed for two operators performing angiography procedures. One operator used a Lead Apron, while the other used the Zero Gravity system. Radiation was measured using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). Procedural characteristics, fluoroscopy time, and contrast dose were recorded. Feedback on Lead Apron use was collected using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Each operator performed 63 procedures with similar characteristics. Zero Gravity showed no significant difference in whole-body radiation exposure (De) compared to the Lead Apron (0.349 mSv vs. 0.346 mSv). However, Zero Gravity resulted in a lower external skin dose (Ds) compared to the Lead Apron (0.314 mSv vs. 0.339 mSv). Most cardiologists reported minimal disability from using Lead Aprons.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Zero Gravity and Lead Apron provide comparable whole-body radiation protection, with Zero Gravity slightly reducing skin exposure. While ZG does not significantly alter overall radiation exposure, it may reduce ergonomic issues associated with Lead Aprons.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Zero Gravity provides comparable whole-body radiation protection to Lead Aprons and reduces skin exposure. Further research is needed to address long-term impacts and enhance protective strategies in catheterization labs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72158,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice","volume":"53 ","pages":"Article 100536"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of radiation shielding zero gravity vs lead apron in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention\",\"authors\":\"Omnia Tajelsir Abdalla Osman, Sara Al Balushi, Salaheddin Omran Arafa, Murad Al Khani, Jassim Al Suwaidi, Fahad Alkindi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Ensuring safety from radiation in catheterization labs is critical due to the cumulative nature of radiation exposure. This study compares the effectiveness of Zero Gravity (ZG) and conventional Lead Apron shields in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Over six months, radiation exposure was assessed for two operators performing angiography procedures. One operator used a Lead Apron, while the other used the Zero Gravity system. Radiation was measured using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). Procedural characteristics, fluoroscopy time, and contrast dose were recorded. Feedback on Lead Apron use was collected using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Each operator performed 63 procedures with similar characteristics. Zero Gravity showed no significant difference in whole-body radiation exposure (De) compared to the Lead Apron (0.349 mSv vs. 0.346 mSv). However, Zero Gravity resulted in a lower external skin dose (Ds) compared to the Lead Apron (0.314 mSv vs. 0.339 mSv). Most cardiologists reported minimal disability from using Lead Aprons.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Zero Gravity and Lead Apron provide comparable whole-body radiation protection, with Zero Gravity slightly reducing skin exposure. While ZG does not significantly alter overall radiation exposure, it may reduce ergonomic issues associated with Lead Aprons.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Zero Gravity provides comparable whole-body radiation protection to Lead Aprons and reduces skin exposure. Further research is needed to address long-term impacts and enhance protective strategies in catheterization labs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice\",\"volume\":\"53 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602225000394\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602225000394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言由于辐射照射具有累积性,因此确保导管室的辐射安全至关重要。这项研究比较了零重力(Zero Gravity,ZG)防护罩和传统铅围裙在冠状动脉造影术和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的效果。一名操作员使用铅围裙,另一名操作员使用零重力系统。使用热释光剂量计 (TLD) 测量辐射量。记录了手术特征、透视时间和造影剂剂量。使用 Oswestry 腰痛残疾问卷收集了对铅围裙使用情况的反馈。与铅围裙(0.349 mSv vs. 0.346 mSv)相比,零重力在全身辐射暴露(De)方面没有明显差异。不过,与铅围裙(0.314 mSv vs. 0.339 mSv)相比,零重力导致的外部皮肤剂量(Ds)更低。讨论零重力和铅围裙提供的全身辐射防护效果相当,零重力可略微降低皮肤暴露量。虽然零重力不会明显改变总体辐照量,但可以减少与铅围裙相关的人体工程学问题。需要进一步开展研究,以解决长期影响并加强导管实验室的防护策略。
Comparative evaluation of radiation shielding zero gravity vs lead apron in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention
Introduction
Ensuring safety from radiation in catheterization labs is critical due to the cumulative nature of radiation exposure. This study compares the effectiveness of Zero Gravity (ZG) and conventional Lead Apron shields in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods
Over six months, radiation exposure was assessed for two operators performing angiography procedures. One operator used a Lead Apron, while the other used the Zero Gravity system. Radiation was measured using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). Procedural characteristics, fluoroscopy time, and contrast dose were recorded. Feedback on Lead Apron use was collected using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.
Results
Each operator performed 63 procedures with similar characteristics. Zero Gravity showed no significant difference in whole-body radiation exposure (De) compared to the Lead Apron (0.349 mSv vs. 0.346 mSv). However, Zero Gravity resulted in a lower external skin dose (Ds) compared to the Lead Apron (0.314 mSv vs. 0.339 mSv). Most cardiologists reported minimal disability from using Lead Aprons.
Discussion
Zero Gravity and Lead Apron provide comparable whole-body radiation protection, with Zero Gravity slightly reducing skin exposure. While ZG does not significantly alter overall radiation exposure, it may reduce ergonomic issues associated with Lead Aprons.
Conclusion
Zero Gravity provides comparable whole-body radiation protection to Lead Aprons and reduces skin exposure. Further research is needed to address long-term impacts and enhance protective strategies in catheterization labs.