In plain language
This review finds most shielding tools substantially lower interventional staff dose, but glasses without side shields and leaded gloves in the direct x-ray field protect poorly, and heavy or bulky shielding brings discomfort and slows procedures.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Narrative review
- Who was studied
- Interventional radiologists, Mixed lab staff
- Topics
- Personal protective equipmentRoom shielding and protective devicesEye lens and cataractsThyroidMusculoskeletal injury and ergonomics
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Most radiation protection tools (aprons, thyroid shields, cabins, floor- and table-mounted shields, ceiling shields, drapes) provide substantial dose reduction for personnel, with exceptions.
Leaded glasses without lateral protection do not adequately protect operators, who are typically exposed to scatter from the side.
Leaded surgical gloves do not protect hands placed in the primary x-ray field.
Effective protection tools have drawbacks including physical discomfort and reduced procedure efficiency, so new devices are needed.
Limits to keep in mind
Narrative review summarised from the abstract only; no quantitative data or systematic method reported.
Related research summaries
- Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
- Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology (2022, Narrative review)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- Get Protected! Recommendations for Staff in IR (2021, Narrative review)
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
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.