AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LEAD RUBBER APRONS IN RADIODIAGNOSTIC CENTRES IN SOUTH-SOUTH NIGERIA
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background of Study: Radiation protection is of core importance in radiodiagnostic centres, to keep both patients care givers and staff of the centres from stochastic and non- stochastic effects of radiation. The effectiveness and protectiveness of aprons are of valuable importance, it is therefore necessary to assess these aprons to ensure efficacy. Such quality checks have not been reported in the South – South region of Nigeria.
Method: Twenty two protective lead aprons from 18 radiological clinics in South-South Nigeria were directly exposed to X-rays with average factors of 70 ± 5kVp, 16 mAs and 100 cm Source to apron distance, with 43 x 35 cm cassettes places underneath to cover the upper (thoracic half) and the lower (abdominal half) respectively. Exposed films were processed in each centre following regular processing protocols to obtain radiographs with images of the state of the aprons. The images were analyzed on the basis of each apron’s lead equivalence (content), age, brand and the type of defects observed. Defects were characterized into cracks, tears, splits and rips.
Results: Results showed that 68% of all the aprons under study were defective, having cracks (44%), tears (33%), splits (15%) and/or rips (8%). About 73 % of the defective aprons had more than one (1) type of defect.
Conclusion: Over two-thirds (⅔) of lead aprons found in diagnostic radiology centres in South – South Nigeria, have shown sufficient evidence of defects to suggest that they may not be useful for radiation protection of the users.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles in JRRS are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to Cite
References
Stam W, Pilley M. Inspection of lead apron: A practical rejection model. Operational Radiation Safety, 2008; S133–S136.
Hubbert TE, Vucich JJ, Armstrong MR. Lightweight aprons for protection against scattered radiation during fluoroscopy. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1993; 161(5):1079–1081.
Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Medical and Dental Guidance Notes. Available at: www.ipem.ac.uk/Publications/MedicalandDentalGuidanceNotes.aspx
Finnerty M, Brennam PC. Protective aprons in imaging departments: manufacturer stated lead equivalence value requires validation. European Radiology, 2005; 15(7):1477–1484.
Lambert K, McKeon T. Inspection of lead aprons: Criteria for rejection. Radiation Safety Journal, 2001; 80:67–69.
Leonie M, Harald O, Gudran I, Fiona W. Basic radiation protection for everyday use: How to achieve ALARA—Working tips and guidelines. World Health Organization, 2004.
Christodoulou EG, Goodsitt MM, Larson SC, Darner KL, Satti J, Chan HP. Evaluation of the transmitted exposure through lead equivalent aprons used in a radiology department, including the contribution from backscatter. Medical Physics, 2003; 30(6):1033–1038.
Muir S, McLeod R, Dove R. Lightweight lead aprons—light on weight, protection, or labelling accuracy? Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 2005; 28:128–130.
Egbe NO, Eduwem DU, Ikamaise VC. Investigation of the image quality of plain abdominal radiographs in three Nigerian hospitals. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 2007. Available at: http://www.biij.org/2007/4/e39
Egbe NO, Inah GB, Azogor WE, Chiaghanam NO, Ikamaise VC. Good radiographic practice: The Nigerian experience and the CEC recommendations. European Journal of Radiography, 2009; 1:147–150.
Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, Lilley M, Servant R, Reh G. Composite materials for x-ray protection. Health Physics, 1991; 60(5):661–664.
Zuguchi M, Chida K, Taura M, Inaba Y, Ebato A, Yamada S. Usefulness of non-lead aprons in radiation protection for physicians performing interventional procedures. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 2008; 131(4):531–534.