Operator Radiation and the Efficacy of Ceiling-Suspended Lead Screen Shielding during Coronary Angiography: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study Using Real-Time Dosimeters

At a glance

Type of study

Original research, Phantom or simulation study

Who was studied

Phantom or simulation (no people), Interventional cardiologists

Where

China

Topics

Room shielding and protective devicesDosimetry and monitoringDose reduction techniquesEye lens and cataractsThyroid

Summary based on

the full text

What it found

• With table-side shielding, placing the ceiling-suspended screen close to the primary operator gave the greatest dose reduction compared with positions near the patient or at the operator's left side.

  Key figures: 76.8%, 81.9% and 93.5% reduction for primary operator; p < 0.013 for close-to-PO vs other scenarios

• The assistant also received the most protection with the screen close to the primary operator.

  Key figures: 70.3%, 76.7% and 90.0% reduction

• With the screen close to the primary operator, dose rates at the glabella (eye level) and neck (thyroid level) were reduced by up to about 99%.

  Key figures: up to 98.8% (glabella) and 98.6% (neck)

• Unshielded primary operator dose rates varied widely by projection and body site, with the lower legs receiving the highest rates; the assistant received significantly less.

  Key figures: PO mean 67.2 ± 49.0 μSv/min (range 2.3-227.9); assistant mean 20.1 ± 19.6 μSv/min, P < 0.003

• Right anterior oblique (RAO) 30° was the lowest-dose projection for both operators; hypogastrium dose stayed relatively high with some projections even with shielding.

Limits to keep in mind

Single-centre anthropomorphic phantom study with manikin operators in fixed standing positions, one patient body size and short cine acquisitions; dose rates on apron surfaces are not organ doses or health outcomes.

Related research summaries

• Evaluation of the effectiveness of a tunnel-shaped radiation shielding system in CT-guided interventions: Reduction of scattered radiation in phantom experiment (2025, Phantom or simulation study)
• Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
• Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
• A New Design of a Lead-Acrylic Shield for Staff Dose Reduction in Radial and Femoral Access Coronary Catheterization (2015, Phantom or simulation study)
• Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology (2022, Narrative review)