Prevalence of Spinal Disc Disease Among Interventional Cardiologists

Ross, Allan M.; Segal, Jonathan H.; Borenstein, David G.; Jenkins, Ellen; Cho, Shuyan

doi:10.1016/s0002-9149(96)00678-9

Cited by 197 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

157

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The growth in utilization and complexity of fluoroscopic procedures has increased workload for interventionalists, resulting in cumulative radiation doses and orthopedic strains that can be limiting or career ending [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Despite suffering significantly increased neck and back pain, lost work time, and cervical disc herniations (P < 0.01) [4], exposures remain excessive as demonstrated by one operator receiving the equivalent of 60 skull films during 1 month's practice using available shielding [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite suffering significantly increased neck and back pain, lost work time, and cervical disc herniations (P < 0.01) [4], exposures remain excessive as demonstrated by one operator receiving the equivalent of 60 skull films during 1 month's practice using available shielding [12]. Data suggest that cataract formation is occurring at exposures less than previously believed with a low or absent threshold dose [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of a Suspended Personal Radiation Protection System vs. Conventional Apron and Shields in Clinical Interventional Procedures

Savage¹,

Seale²,

Shaw³

et al. 2013

OJRad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This clinical study compares conventional lead aprons and ancillary shields to a functionally weightless personal overhead-supported system with expanded coverage. Materials and Methods: Primary operators performed procedures (N = 126, fluoroscopy minutes = 1209) using one of 2 methods of radiation protection and wearing dosimeters on multiple body locations. Method "LAS" (Lead-Apron+Shields): lead skirt, vest, thyroid shield, with 100% use of under-table shield, side shield, and mobile suspended lead-acrylic shield. Method "Zgrav": ZeroGravity system (CFI Medical Solutions) with variable use of shielding. The studied early model moving with the operator had a curved lead-acrylic head shield (0.5 mm Pb) and expansive lead apron (0.5 -1.0 mm Pb) that covered leg to distal calf and proximal arm to elbow, and a drape that permitted sterile entry and exit. Study was institutional review board approved and HIPPA-compliant. Results: Measured with a sensitive electronic dosimeter, eye exposures were 99% (P < 0.001) reduced for Zgrav with upgraded face shield vs. LAS, regardless of use or non-use of suspended shield with Zgrav. With optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters, operator exposures, standardized to minutes of fluoroscopy and Fluoroscopic Patient Dose Area Product, were reduced by 87% -100% for eye & head, neck, humerus, and tibia (Zgrav vs. LAS). Overall eye & head exposure reduction for entire study was 94%. Non-equivalence of torso exposures was not demonstrated. A brief user survey showed ergonomic advantages of Zgrav. Conclusion: Compared to conventional lead aprons with shields, the suspended system provided superior operator protection during interventional fluoroscopy, allowing operators to perform procedures without potentially obstructive shields.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Suspended Personal Radiation Protection System vs. Conventional Apron and Shields in Clinical Interventional Procedures

Savage¹,

Seale²,

Shaw³

et al. 2013

OJRad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, workers who regularly wear heavy lead aprons may experience back pain or disk disease 1, 2. Other shortcomings of aprons made of lead or lead equivalent materials include inflexibility and toxicity 3, 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of the shielding ability of a tungsten functional paper for diagnostic x‐rays and gamma rays

Monzen

Kanno

Fujimoto

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tungsten functional paper (TFP) is a novel paper‐based radiation‐shielding material. We measured the shielding ability of TFP against x‐rays and gamma rays. The TFP was supplied in 0.3‐mm‐thick sheets that contained 80% tungsten powder and 20% cellulose (C6H10O5) by mass. In dose measurements for x‐rays (60, 80, 100, and 120 kVp), we measured doses after through 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 12 TFP sheets, as well as 0.3 and 0.5 mm of lead. In lead equivalence measurements, we measured doses after through 2 and 10 TFP sheets for x‐rays (100 and 150 kVp), and 0, 7, 10, 20, and 30 TFP sheets for gamma rays from cesium‐137 source (662 keV). And then, the lead equivalent thicknesses of TFP were determined by comparison with doses after through standard lead plates (purity >99.9%). Additionally, we evaluated uniformity of the transmitted dose by TFP with a computed radiography image plate for 50 kVp x‐rays. A single TFP sheet was found to have a shielding ability of 65%, 53%, 48%, and 46% for x‐rays (60, 80, 100, and 120 kVp), respectively. The lead equivalent thicknesses of two TFP sheets were 0.10 ± 0.02, 0.09 ± 0.02 mmPb, and of ten TFP sheets were 0.48 ± 0.02 and 0.51 ± 0.02 mmPb for 100 and 150 kVp x‐rays, respectively. The lead equivalent thicknesses of 7, 10, 20, and 30 sheets of TFP for gamma rays from cesium‐137 source were estimated as 0.28, 0.43, 0.91, and 1.50 mmPb with an error of ± 0.01 mm. One TFP sheet had nonuniformity, however, seven TFP sheets provided complete shielding for 50 kVp x‐rays. TFP has adequate radiation shielding ability for x‐rays and gamma rays within the energy range used in diagnostic imaging field.

show abstract

“…However, the weight of such shielding can lead to fatigue and orthopedic injury, including disc herniation and the onset of back or neck pain. [6][7][8] The unmet need…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%