ArticleJournal of radiation research2023
New perforated radiation shield for anesthesiologists: Monte Carlo simulation of effects.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Radiation Shield for Interventional Echocardiographers With Application During Structural Heart Disease Procedures.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Directional vector-based quick evaluation method for protective plate effects in X-ray fluoroscopy (DQPEX).Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Directional vector visualization of scattered rays in mobile c-arm fluoroscopy.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Catheterization for structural heart disease (SHD) requires fluoroscopic guidance, which exposes health care professionals to radiation exposure risk. Nevertheless, existing freestanding radiation shields for anesthesiologists are typically simple, uncomfortable rectangles. Therefore, we devised a new perforated radiation shield that allows anesthesiologists and echocardiographers to access a patient through its apertures during SHD catheterization. No report of the relevant literature has described the degree to which the anesthesiologist's radiation dose can be reduced by installing radiation shields. For estimating whole-body doses to anesthesiologists and air dose distributions in the operating room, we used a Monte Carlo system for a rapid dose-estimation system used with interventional radiology. The simulations were performed under four conditions: no radiation shield, large apertures, small apertures and without apertures. With small apertures, the doses to the lens, waist and neck surfaces were found to be comparable to those of a protective plate without an aperture, indicating that our new radiation shield copes with radiation protection and work efficiency. To simulate the air-absorbed dose distribution, results indicated that a fan-shaped area of the dose rate decrease was generated in the area behind the shield, as seen from the tube sphere. For the aperture, radiation was found to wrap around the backside of the shield, even at a height that did not match the aperture height. The data presented herein are expected to be of interest to all anesthesiologists who might be involved in SHD catheterization. The data are also expected to enhance their understanding of radiation exposure protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.