The addition of a leaded arm sleeve to leaded aprons further decreases operator upper outer quadrant chest wall radiation dose during fluoroscopically guided interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer most commonly occurs in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) chest wall (CW). The effectiveness of routine leaded aprons to protect this region of the body in interventionalists during fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs) is unknown. Given the high lifetime attributable risks of prolonged occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and the increasing number of practicing female vascular surgeons and interventionalists, we sought to determine if the use of a leaded arm shield would offer additional protection to the lateral CW and axilla in operators compared with routine leaded aprons. METHODS: Effectiveness of leaded sleeves in attenuating radiation dose to the axilla and UOQ was evaluated in clinical practice and simulated scenarios. In the clinical setting, optically stimulated luminescence nanoDot detectors were placed at the UOQ lateral CW position, both over and under a standard leaded apron vest with and without the addition of an antimony/bismuth Enviro-Lite sleeve on two vascular surgeons performing FGIs. In the simulation, nanoDots were similarly placed on an anthropomorphic phantom positioned to represent a primary operator performing right femoral access. Fluorography was performed on 12-inch-thick acrylic scatter phantom at 80 kVp for an exposure of 3 Gy reference air kerma. Experiments were done with and without the sleeve. Paired Wilcoxon and χ2 tests were performed to identify the statistical significance of radiation attenuation. RESULTS: Operator UOQ CW dose was measured during 61 FGIs: 33 cases (54%) with and 28 cases (46%) without the sleeve. Median procedure reference air kerma and fluoroscopy time was 180 mGy (interquartile range [IQR], 85-447 mGy) and 21 minutes (IQR, 11-39 minutes) when the sleeve was worn vs 100 mGy (IQR, 67-270 mGy) and 11 minutes (IQR, 6.3-25 minutes) without the sleeve. Radiation dose to the operator's UOQ was reduced by 96% (IQR, 85%-96%) when the sleeve was present and by 62% (IQR, 44%-82%; P < .001) without the sleeve. In the simulated setting, the sleeve reduced the radiation dose to the UOQ compared with the apron alone (96% vs 67%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine leaded aprons do attenuate the majority of UOQ chest wall radiation dose; however, the addition of a lead-equivalent sleeve further significantly reduces this dose. Because this area of the body has a high incidence of cancer formation, additional protection, especially to female interventionalists, seems prudent. Vascular surgeons should consider using a protective sleeve with their personal protective equipment when performing complex fluoroscopically guided procedures.