Study on the effect of personal radiological protective equipment used in diagnostic radiology
10.3760/cma.j.cn112271-20221021-00415
- VernacularTitle:放射诊断受检者个人放射防护用品使用效果研究
- Author:
Qiang FU
1
;
Lu WANG
;
Yue XI
;
Liang SUN
;
Shengrong JI
;
Zhonghao REN
;
Jia WANG
;
Bing LIU
Author Information
1. 康复大学青岛医院（青岛市市立医院）放射防护管理科，青岛 266011
- Keywords:
Personal protective device;
Ambient dose equivalent;
Concern point;
Administrative law enforcement
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2023;43(6):462-468
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To study the actual effect of the use of personal protective equipment of the examined individuals, and provide reference and basis for the correct use of personal protective equipment and the radiological health administrative law enforcement.Methods:From February to June 2022, the imaging department of Qingdao Municipal Hospital selected 170 patients who underwent X-ray imaging examination (oral panoramic, dental radiography, DR photography, CT scanning), including 25 with oral panoramic and dental radiography, 60 with CT scanning and 60 with DR imaging. The thermoluminescent dosimeter was used to detect the ambient dose equivalent at the point of concern for 170 examined individuals who have used personal protective equipment to cover their sensitive parts, and to analyze the data detected at the same point as above when routinely using the same equipment.Results:There was a statistically significant difference in the dose equivalent at the same points inside and outside the lead neckband ( t=-2.23, P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the dose equivalent at the same point inside and outside the lead collar during dental radiography ( P>0.05). During DR photography (chest PA, lateral and lumbar AP), the examined individuals were wearing lead aprons. Among them, there was a statistically significant difference in the dose equivalent at the same points inside and outside the lead aprons of children′s chest PA and adults′ chest PA ( U=10.00, 19.00, P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the dose equivalent at the same points inside and outside the lead aprons of adult′s chest PA and lumbar AP ( P>0.05). When performing CT scan (chest or upper abdomen), there was a statistically significant difference in the dose equivalent at the same points of wrapped lead aprons( U=878.50, 11.00, P<0.05). Conclusions:The correct use of personal protective equipment is a complex technical problem. It is very important to fully and accurately understand the optimization principle of radiation protection and correctly use personal protective equipment for the examined individuals. The administrative punishment of radiation health on the use of personal protective equipment of the examined individuals should be cautious.
