In plain language
In 1063 protective garments tested over four years, 11.2% had cracks or tears and about a quarter missed their stated lead equivalence by more than 5%. The authors recommend routine, standardised inspection of aprons used by the fluoroscopy team.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research
- Size
- n = 1,063 protective equipment items
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
About one in nine protective garments had cracks or tears.
Key figures: 88.8% defect-free; 11.2% with cracks or tears
About a quarter of items did not meet stated lead equivalence within ±5%, with 11.9% deviating by more than 10%.
Key figures: 74.3% within ±5%; 13.8% deviated 5%-10%; 11.9% >10%
Radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) and a dedicated testing system had comparable accuracy; the dedicated system offered workflow, coverage and reporting advantages with low stray dose.
Key figures: <0.3μSv h-1at 1 m
Authors recommend routine inspection with standardised protocols and inspection intervals.
Limits to keep in mind
Abstract only; country, institutions, garment types and ages, and the direction of lead-equivalence deviations (below versus above specification) are not reported. Equipment testing does not measure staff dose or health outcomes.
Related research summaries
- A Study of Radiation Exposure and the Effects of Real-time Dosimetry System on Staff Safety in Neurointerventional Procedures (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Assessment of Operating Room Staff Compliance with Radiation Safety Measures in Morocco: A Cross-sectional Study (2026, Cross-sectional survey)
- Effect of radiation protection apron defect on radiation dose during fluoroscopy (2026, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Evaluating radiation protection knowledge and practices in operating room personnel: a cross-sectional study (2026, Cross-sectional survey)
- Investigating Medical Radiation Awareness of Saudi Arabian Cardiologists in Catheterization Labs: (2026, Cross-sectional survey)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.