BACKGROUND: The physician's hands are close to the X-ray field in C-arm fluoroscopy-guided pain interventions. We prospectively investigated the radiation attenuation of Proguard RR-2 gloves. METHODS: In 100 cases, the effective doses (EDs) of two dosimeters without a radiation-reducing glove were collected. EDs from the two dosimeters-one dosimeter wrapped with a glove and the other dosimeter without a glove- were also measured at the side of the table (Group 1, 140 cases) and at a location 20 cm away from the side of the table (Group 2, 120 cases). Mean differences such as age, height, weight, radiation absorbed dose (RAD), exposure time, ED, and ratio of EDs were analyzed. RESULTS: In the EDs of two dosimeters without gloves, there were no significant differences (39.0 ± 36.3 µSv vs. 38.8 ± 36.4 µSv) (P = 0.578). The RAD (192.0 ± 182.0 radcm(2)) in Group 2 was higher than that (132.3 ± 103.5 radcm(2)) in Group 1 (P = 0.002). The ED (33.3 ± 30.9 µSv) of the dosimeter without a glove in Group 1 was higher than that (12.3 ± 8.8 µSv) in Group 2 (P < 0.001). The ED (24.4 ± 22.4 µSv) of the dosimeter wrapped with a glove in Group 1 was higher than that (9.2 ± 6.8 µSv) in Group 2 (P < 0.001). No significant differences were noted in the ratio of EDs (73.5 ± 6.7% vs. 74.2 ± 9.3%, P = 0.469) between Group 1 and Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Proguard RR-2 gloves have a radiation attenuation effect of 25.8-26.5%. The radiation attenuation is not significantly different by intensity of scatter radiation or the different RADs of C-arm fluoroscopy.
BACKGROUND: The physician's hands are close to the X-ray field in C-arm fluoroscopy-guided pain interventions. We prospectively investigated the radiation attenuation of Proguard RR-2 gloves. METHODS: In 100 cases, the effective doses (EDs) of two dosimeters without a radiation-reducing glove were collected. EDs from the two dosimeters-one dosimeter wrapped with a glove and the other dosimeter without a glove- were also measured at the side of the table (Group 1, 140 cases) and at a location 20 cm away from the side of the table (Group 2, 120 cases). Mean differences such as age, height, weight, radiation absorbed dose (RAD), exposure time, ED, and ratio of EDs were analyzed. RESULTS: In the EDs of two dosimeters without gloves, there were no significant differences (39.0 ± 36.3 µSv vs. 38.8 ± 36.4 µSv) (P = 0.578). The RAD (192.0 ± 182.0 radcm(2)) in Group 2 was higher than that (132.3 ± 103.5 radcm(2)) in Group 1 (P = 0.002). The ED (33.3 ± 30.9 µSv) of the dosimeter without a glove in Group 1 was higher than that (12.3 ± 8.8 µSv) in Group 2 (P < 0.001). The ED (24.4 ± 22.4 µSv) of the dosimeter wrapped with a glove in Group 1 was higher than that (9.2 ± 6.8 µSv) in Group 2 (P < 0.001). No significant differences were noted in the ratio of EDs (73.5 ± 6.7% vs. 74.2 ± 9.3%, P = 0.469) between Group 1 and Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Proguard RR-2 gloves have a radiation attenuation effect of 25.8-26.5%. The radiation attenuation is not significantly different by intensity of scatter radiation or the different RADs of C-arm fluoroscopy.
Authors: C Koukorava; E Carinou; G Simantirakis; T G Vrachliotis; E Archontakis; C Tierris; P Dimitriou Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Jonathan S Luchs; Alex Rosioreanu; David Gregorius; Natarajan Venkataramanan; Volkmar Koehler; A Orlando Ortiz Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Seung Woo Baek; Jae Sung Ryu; Cheol Hee Jung; Joo Han Lee; Won Kyoung Kwon; Nam Sik Woo; Hae Kyoung Kim; Jae Hun Kim Journal: Korean J Pain Date: 2013-04-03
Authors: David A Ramirez Cadavid; Rick R Layman; Thomas Nishino; J Lauren Slutzky; Zhenyu Li; Katrina Cornish Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.623