Clean Sweep Live Auction on Wed. May 1st. Click to view the full inventory

DOTmed Home MRI Oncology Ultrasound Molecular Imaging X-Ray Cardiology Health IT Business Affairs
News Home Parts & Service Operating Room CT Women's Health Proton Therapy Endoscopy HTMs Pediatrics
Current Location:
> This Story

Log in or Register to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Comment




X-Ray Homepage

FDA clears GE’s AI-based CT image reconstruction technology Available as upgrade to Revolution Apex scanner

Philips Medical Systems sues ex-employee over alleged secrets theft Suit claims X-ray tube trade secrets were stolen before erasing hard drive

The upper extremity value of mini C-arms in the ER and OR Insights from Dr. Korsh Jafarnia

X-ray sheds new light on ancient mummy The Everhart Museum in PA tapped Geisinger Radiology for help

First ultra high-res CT scan performed on US patient Scanner at UC Davis can image anatomy as small as 150 microns

Joint Commission fluoro mandate may confuse providers, say experts Requires max exposure rates of imaging modes for fluroscopy devices

This UK company is utilizing space technology to develop a portable 3D X-ray system Adaptix has received $1.35 million from space agencies

Industrial hi-res X-ray yields greater insight into child abuse case Identified microscopic injuries that would not have been detected with standard CT

Trice Imaging connects imaging devices of large chain healthcare provider Aleris Patients and physicians can view images on laptops, cell phones

Reducing extravasations in CT contrast-enhanced IV injections Tips and best practices for administering better care

Paper challenges 'legacy' use of lead apron patient shielding

by John W. Mitchell , Senior Correspondent
In healthcare today, is it possible that shielding patients with a lead apron during radiological exams is a hold-over practice that may ultimately do more harm than good?

This is the view put forth by two physicists at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in a paper due to be published in April in the American Journal of Roentgenology.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

RaySafe helps you avoid unnecessary radiation

RaySafe solutions are designed to minimize the need for user interaction, bringing unprecedented simplicity & usability to the X-ray room. We're committed to establishing a radiation safety culture wherever technicians & medical staff encounter radiation.

The paper emerged from conversations between medical physicists and technologists and the divergent views about patient shielding.

“When asked about the use of patient shielding, every medical physicist we spoke with had a similar response: 'Patient shielding provides no benefit to the patient, other than a psychological one. But we keep doing it because that’s how it’s been done for decades, regardless of the potential risk. And good luck changing that',” Dr. Rebecca Milman Marsh, coauthor and associate professor and imaging medical physicist, told HCB News.

“When the same question was posed to technologists, the general response was along the lines of, 'It would be crazy not to shield! We have to shield to protect our patients'," she said.

Marsh and coauthor Mike Silosky, assistant professor and imaging and nuclear medical physicist, stressed that the same concern motivates both physicists and technologists: to provide the best patient care.

“Ultimately, we were seeking to forge a connection between these groups – at times we failed spectacularly, as demonstrated by some of the very early discussions referenced in the article,” said Marsh. “What we’re trying to do is consider the practice of shielding patients in the framework of current technology and knowledge.”

Much has changed in the past 70 years, and modern clinical practice should reflect such changes, according to the authors. In fact, they argue that shielding can actually introduce risks to the patient.

For example, automatic dose algorithms, which optimize quality by adjusting radiation output, can be intensified by a lead shield. In other words, to overcome the “attenuating material” in the shield, the X-ray system may increase dose over recommended levels and degrade the image. The paper also notes that: “…the practice of shielding patients is largely supported by a skewed perception of radiation risk … for which misinformation is rampant.”

“The medical physics community has been overwhelmingly supportive of our conclusions,” said Marsh. “Other health care professionals have been more split, with some more supportive than others. When we talk to skeptics, we often find their responses to be very emotionally charged.”

The two do not expect their paper to be the end of the shielding controversy, which they termed a “legacy” practice in the paper. However, they believe the dialogue around the issue should be open and respectful.

“We want to remind everyone that … our recommendation to change a historical practice is driven by changes in technology and the current scientific knowledge, not due to a dismissal of patient health concerns,” said Marsh.

X-Ray Homepage

You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment

Increase Your
Brand Awareness
Auctions + Private Sales
Get The
Best Price
Buy Equipment/Parts
Find The
Lowest Price
Daily News
Read The
Latest News
Browse All
DOTmed Users
Ethics on DOTmed
View Our
Ethics Program
Gold Parts Vendor Program
Receive PH
Gold Service Dealer Program
Receive RFP/PS
Healthcare Providers
See all
HCP Tools
A Job
Parts Hunter +EasyPay
Get Parts
Recently Certified
View Recently
Certified Users
Recently Rated
View Recently
Certified Users
Rental Central
Rent Equipment
For Less
Sell Equipment/Parts
Get The
Most Money
Service Technicians Forum
Find Help
And Advice
Simple RFP
Get Equipment
Virtual Trade Show
Find Service
For Equipment
Access and use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions of our LEGAL NOTICE & PRIVACY NOTICE
Property of and Proprietary to DOTmed.com, Inc. Copyright ©2001-2019 DOTmed.com, Inc.