TY - JOUR
T1 - The Effect of a Suspended Radiation Protection System on Occupational Radiation Doses During Infrarenal EVAR Procedures
T2 - A Randomised Controlled Study
AU - Serna Santos, Juan
AU - Kaasalainen, Touko
AU - Laukontaus, Sani
AU - Björkman, Patrick
AU - Heinola, Ivika
AU - Laine, Matti
AU - Vikatmaa, Pirkka
AU - Pekkarinen, Antti
AU - Venermo, Maarit
AU - Aho, Pekka
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Objective: To compare the protective effect of Zero Gravity (ZG) with conventional radiation protection during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Secondly, user experience was surveyed with a questionnaire on ergonomics. Methods: This was a single centre, prospective, randomised, two arm trial where 71 consecutive elective infrarenal EVAR procedures were randomised into two groups: (1) operator using ZG and assistant using conventional protection (n = 36), and (2) operator and assistant using conventional radiation protection (n = 35). A movable floor unit ZG system consists of a lead shield (1.0 mm Pb equivalent) for the front of the body and 0.5 mm Pb equivalent acrylic shielding for the head and neck. The ZG also includes arm flaps of 0.5 mm Pb equivalent covering the arm up to the elbow. Deep dose equivalent values, Hp(10) were measured with direct ion storage dosimeters (DIS) placed on various anatomical regions of the operator (axilla, chest, abdomen, and lower leg). Personal dose equivalent values, Hp(3) to eye lenses were measured in the operating and assisting surgeon using thermoluminescence dosimeters. The study was registered at the US National Institute of Health #NCT04078165. Results: Protection with the standard protection was superior in chest (0.0 vs. 0.1 μSv), abdomen (0.0 vs. 0.6 μSv), and lower leg (0.4 vs. 2.2 μSv) (p < .001). On the other hand, the ZG system yielded better shielding for the axilla (1.5 vs. 0.0 μSv) and eyes (6.3 vs. 1.1 μSv) of the operator. The use of ZG hampered the deployment of ancillary shields, which is particularly relevant for protection of the assisting surgeon. Users found ZG more cumbersome than conventional garments, it also impaired communication and reduced field of view. Conclusion: Both ZG and conventional radiation protection reduced radiation exposure. Conventional protection allows better manoeuvrability at the price of wider exposure of the upper arm and axilla. ZG indirectly impaired protection of the assistant.
AB - Objective: To compare the protective effect of Zero Gravity (ZG) with conventional radiation protection during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Secondly, user experience was surveyed with a questionnaire on ergonomics. Methods: This was a single centre, prospective, randomised, two arm trial where 71 consecutive elective infrarenal EVAR procedures were randomised into two groups: (1) operator using ZG and assistant using conventional protection (n = 36), and (2) operator and assistant using conventional radiation protection (n = 35). A movable floor unit ZG system consists of a lead shield (1.0 mm Pb equivalent) for the front of the body and 0.5 mm Pb equivalent acrylic shielding for the head and neck. The ZG also includes arm flaps of 0.5 mm Pb equivalent covering the arm up to the elbow. Deep dose equivalent values, Hp(10) were measured with direct ion storage dosimeters (DIS) placed on various anatomical regions of the operator (axilla, chest, abdomen, and lower leg). Personal dose equivalent values, Hp(3) to eye lenses were measured in the operating and assisting surgeon using thermoluminescence dosimeters. The study was registered at the US National Institute of Health #NCT04078165. Results: Protection with the standard protection was superior in chest (0.0 vs. 0.1 μSv), abdomen (0.0 vs. 0.6 μSv), and lower leg (0.4 vs. 2.2 μSv) (p < .001). On the other hand, the ZG system yielded better shielding for the axilla (1.5 vs. 0.0 μSv) and eyes (6.3 vs. 1.1 μSv) of the operator. The use of ZG hampered the deployment of ancillary shields, which is particularly relevant for protection of the assisting surgeon. Users found ZG more cumbersome than conventional garments, it also impaired communication and reduced field of view. Conclusion: Both ZG and conventional radiation protection reduced radiation exposure. Conventional protection allows better manoeuvrability at the price of wider exposure of the upper arm and axilla. ZG indirectly impaired protection of the assistant.
KW - EVAR
KW - Radiation protection
KW - Radiation safety
KW - Suspended radiation shield
KW - Zero Gravity
KW - 3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.08.039
DO - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.08.039
M3 - Article
C2 - 37611731
AN - SCOPUS:85171591433
SN - 1078-5884
VL - 67
SP - 435
EP - 443
JO - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
JF - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
IS - 3
ER -