Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 21;17(7):e0271664.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271664. eCollection 2022.

Physical strain while wearing personal radiation protection systems in interventional radiology

Alexander M Koenig  1 , Anna Schweer  1 , Daniel Sasse  1 , Robin Etzel  2 , Jonas Apitzsch  3 , Simon Viniol  1 , Rohit P Thomas  1 , Andreas H Mahnken  1
Affiliations

Physical strain while wearing personal radiation protection systems in interventional radiology

Alexander M Koenig et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objectives: Multiple studies show orthopedic health problems for medical staff due to wearing radiation protection aprons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the weight pressure on the shoulder as a marker of physical strain caused by different radiation-protection devices.

Methods: For the weight pressure measurement, a pressure sensor (OMD-30-SE-100N, OptoForce, Budapest, Hungary) placed on the left and right shoulder was used. Wearing different radiation protection systems the force measurement system was used to quantify the weight pressure. Measurements were acquired in still standing position and during various movements.

Results: A mean significant decreasing weight pressure on the shoulder between 74% and 84% (p<0.001) was measured, when the free-hanging radiation protection system was used in comparison to one-piece and two-piece radiation protection aprons and coats. Using two-piece radiation protection aprons, the weight pressure was significantly lower than that of one-piece radiation protection coats. If a belt was used for the one-piece radiation protection coat, the weight pressure on the shoulder was reduced by 32.5% (p = 0.003). For a two-piece radiation protection apron and a one-piece radiation protection coat (with and without belt) a significant different weight pressure distribution between the right and left shoulder could be measured.

Conclusions: The free-hanging radiation protection system showed a significant lower weight pressure in comparison to the other radiation protection devices. Apart from this, use of a two-piece radiation protection apron or addition of a belt to a radiation protection coat proved to be further effective options to reduce weight pressure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Pressure sensor on the left shoulder.
Fig 2
Fig 2
A) and B) system 1: free-hanging radiation protection system (350 kg). C) and D) system 2: one-piece radiation protection apron (4.4 kg). E) system 3: two-piece radiation protection apron (6.6 kg). F) system 4: one-piece radiation protection coat without belt (6.7 kg). G) system 5: one-piece radiation protection coat with belt (7 kg).
Fig 3
Fig 3. The shoulder load of the different radiation protection aprons averaged and their standard deviation over all movements is shown.
The load is listed both as average value over both shoulders and for each individual shoulder. The total weight of the free-hanging radiation protection system is significantly lower than the other systems investigated. Furthermore, the weight of the two-piece radiation protection apron is significantly lower than that of the one-piece radiation protection systems. For the one-piece radiation protection coat with and without a belt a significant difference between the right and left shoulder could be measured.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Shoulder loads and their standard deviation during different movements when wearing different radiation protection aprons are shown.
The free-hanging radiation protection system showed a significant (p<0.05) difference in the weight on the shoulder while rotating upper body and with arm movement back and forth. For the one-piece radiation protection apron without belt, a significant (p<0.05) weight reduction on the shoulder was measured when the arms were in moving position (moving sequence 5), in contrast to the other moving positions (1–4).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Konig A.M., Etzel R., Thomas R.P., Mahnken A.H., Personal Radiation Protection and Corresponding Dosimetry in Interventional Radiology: An Overview and Future Developments, Rofo 191(6) (2019) 512–521. doi: 10.1055/a-0800-0113 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johansen S., Hauge I.H.R., 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 49(2) (2018) 201–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2018.02.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andreassi M.G., Piccaluga E., Guagliumi G., Del Greco M., Gaita F., Picano E., Occupational Health Risks in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Workers, Circ Cardiovasc Interv 9(4) (2016) e003273. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003273 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Klein L.W., Tra Y., Garratt K.N., Powell W., Lopez-Cruz G., Chambers C., et al.. Society for Cardiovascular, Interventions, Occupational health hazards of interventional cardiologists in the current decade: Results of the 2014 SCAI membership survey, Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 86(5) (2015) 913–24. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25927 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldstein J.A., Balter S., Cowley M., Hodgson J., Klein L.W., I. Interventional Committee of the Society of Cardiovascular, Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice, Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 63(4) (2004) 407–11. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20201 - DOI - PubMed