In plain language
This review of interventional pain practice reports that properly fitted, inspected lead aprons and thyroid shields keep physician doses within limits in the cited studies, while eye protection use and radiation safety training among Korean pain physicians appear low.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Narrative review
- Who was studied
- Other physicians
- Where
- South Korea
- Topics
- Personal protective equipmentThyroidDosimetry and monitoringMusculoskeletal injury and ergonomicsTraining and educationBreast cancerEye lens and cataractsSafety culture and compliance
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
In the reviewed studies, pain physicians' radiation exposure stayed within safety limits when lead aprons and thyroid shields were used, but the authors still recommend minimizing exposure because of stochastic effects.
A 0.5 mm apron attenuates about 90% or more of scatter; lead-free or composite aprons had slightly higher transmittance than lead aprons.
Key figures: 0.5-5% vs 0.6-6.8% transmittance at 70-100 kVp
Wearing a thyroid shield tightly, or loosely with bismuth masking, gave lower thyroid dose than wearing it loosely in a simulation study.
Key figures: P ≤ 0.001
Korean surveys found most pain physicians had never received radiation safety education, and lead glasses were worn by far fewer operators than aprons.
Key figures: 61% never educated; lead glasses worn by 38-40%
Aprons can develop hidden damage; in one survey the waist was the most common damage site, supporting annual inspection.
Key figures: waist 51%, lower part 33%
Limits to keep in mind
Narrative review with a non-systematic PubMed search; it summarizes a small number of mostly older single-centre dosimetry studies and surveys without quality appraisal.
Related research summaries
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- Lead Aprons and Thyroid Shields in Interventional Pain Management (2018, Narrative review)
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation in the Orthopedic Operating Room: What We Know, What We Do, and What Needs Attention (2025, Narrative review)
- AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (Guideline or consensus statement)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the full text 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.