Program Information
Lightweight Protective Garments: Light On Protection?
B Schueler1*, K Fetterly1 , J Brunette1 , G Tannahill1 , D Magnuson1 , G Sturchio2 , (1) Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, (2) Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
Presentations
SU-F-702-1 (Sunday, July 30, 2017) 2:05 PM - 3:00 PM Room: 702
Purpose: Most lead aprons have been replaced with lead-composite or non-lead materials that promise the same protection as lead with reduced weight. We performed a study to measure the attenuation of a variety of protective garments to assess their level of protection.
Methods: Nineteen frontal aprons labeled as 0.5 mm lead-equivalent from 5 manufacturers were studied, along with lead foils of known thickness. The incident beam energies were selected to simulate scatter radiation using a primary radiographic beam with added aluminum filtration. The maximum energy and HVL of scatter beams emanating from an anthropomorphic phantom were measured for a range of clinical primary beam spectra and 4 representative scatter beam qualities were selected. A broad beam geometry method was used to measure attenuation of each beam with a 180 cc ionization chamber. A protection index value was determined by averaging the attenuation measured for each beam, weighted by the relative KAP values from DICOM RDSR dose reports from over 1500 cardiac and vascular procedures.
Results: The apron protection index values ranged from 93.1% to 98.2%, compared to 0.5 mm lead (97.8%) and 0.35 mm lead (93.7%). Using an acceptance limit of 7% lead equivalent thickness results in failure for 13 out of 19 aprons tested. Several non-lead and lead composite apron models were found to have near the same attenuation as a 0.5 mm lead garment but with a moderately lower weight (82% - 93%). While others with significantly lower weight (64%) have attenuation near 0.35 mm lead.
Conclusion: This study measured the transmission of a large sample of aprons using clinically relevant beam energies. Results showed significant differences in attenuation for aprons labeled with the same nominal lead equivalent thickness. Standards that specify a clinically-relevant x-ray beam and geometry, along with regulatory oversight of manufacturers are needed.
Contact Email: