Purpose: To investigate the manufacturer’s claim that scatter absorbing patient drape reduces radiation scatter exposure to personnel.
Methods: An angiographic fluoroscopic system and C-arm were utilized for data collection. Measurements were taken with and without the 0.25mm-Pb equivalent drape. Lead aprons of 0.25 mm, 0.35 mm, and 0.5 mm thickness were compared as attenuators. Body phantoms, an ion survey meter to measure scatter, and a digital multi-sensor to measure the entrance exposure and backscatter.
Results: Unattenuated values were collected. The drape and lead aprons were introduced, and scatter values were recorded where the operator would stand. The baseline scatter, without any attenuation, was recorded as 140 mR/hr. Using only a 0.35 mm-Pb apron 4 mR/hr was recorded. Using only the drape on the side of the phantom 40 mR/hr was recorded. With the drape and a 0.35 mm-Pb apron 2.5 mR/hr was recorded. When the 0.25 mm-Pb drape was measured against the 0.25 mm-Pb apron the results indicated that the drape was not equivalent. The backscatter measured from the drape was minuscule. Values collected with the mobile c-arm compared similarly to that of the angiographic system.
Conclusion: Although the drape slightly reduces operator exposure, it doesn’t meet lead equivalency claims and the cost benefit is debatable. With the drape on the side of the phantom the exposure rate was cut 73%. With a 0.35 mm-Pb apron the exposure rate was cut 97%. With the drape and 0.35 mm-Pb apron the exposure rate was cut 98.5%. The amount of exposure that is reduced by the drape and apron versus the apron only marginally decreases the exposure rate to the operator. Along with the cost and waste generated by this single use product the efficacy is questionable. An operator’s knowledge of dose reduction techniques can similarly decrease exposure to the operator.
Not Applicable / None Entered.
Not Applicable / None Entered.