An investigation into potential improvements in the design of lead glasses for protecting the eyes of interventional cardiologists
Journal of Radiological Protection, ISSN: 1361-6498, Vol: 42, Issue: 3
2022
- 1Citations
- 7Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The lens of the eye can be damaged by ionising radiation, so individuals whose eyes are exposed to radiation during their work may need to protect their eyes from exposure. Lead glasses are widely available, but there are questions about their efficiency in providing eye protection. In this study, Monte Carlo simulations are used to assess the efficiency of lead glasses in protecting the sensitive volume of the eye lens. Two designs currently available for interventional cardiologists are a wraparound (WA) style and ones with flat frontal lenses with side shielding. These designs were considered together with four modifications that would impact upon their efficiency: changing the lead equivalent thickness, adding lead to the frames, elongating the frontal lenses, and adding a closing shield to the bottom rim. For the eye closest to the source, standard models of lead glasses only decrease the radiation reaching the most sensitive region of the eye lens by 22% or less. Varying the lead thickness between 0.4 mm and 0.75 mm had little influence on the protection provided in the simulation of clinical use, neither did adding lead to the frames. Improved shielding was obtained by elongating the frontal lens, which could reduce radiation reaching the eye lens by up to 76%. Glasses with lenses that had a rim at the base, extending towards the face of the user, also provided better shielding than current models, decreasing the dose by up to 80%. In conclusion, elongating the frontal lens of lead glasses, especially of the WA design, could provide a three-fold increase in shielding efficiency and this is still valid for lenses with 0.4 mm lead equivalence.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85134360789&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ac758f; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35654011; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/ac758f; https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ac758f; https://validate.perfdrive.com/9730847aceed30627ebd520e46ee70b2/?ssa=ac3ecb7a-289e-4c73-9ed5-68cedccdf497&ssb=91755277659&ssc=https%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle%2F10.1088%2F1361-6498%2Fac758f&ssi=ca9cdd8e-cnvj-40e0-913f-34942627acee&ssk=botmanager_support@radware.com&ssm=32093303533013464299771690873950640&ssn=4966a78d268a74ad524a6005c0f082c213176ca9cb41-f3d7-4e1b-923879&sso=c3c61715-ffdfc99f494f22259196bda27da7fef9f4a22f91da08c879&ssp=56699530871735123721173541221170828&ssq=77143026435558188380107047285680293980172&ssr=NTIuMy4yMTcuMjU0&sst=com.plumanalytics&ssu=&ssv=&ssw=&ssx=eyJfX3V6bWYiOiI3ZjYwMDA3MTE4OTkzYS0wYzlhLTRlYmYtYTIxZS1lMGE3MGYxZTJkNGMxNzM1MTA3MDQ3ODQ1MzU3MzA4MTAyLTBkYTc0ZjFmZTY1ZmRmOTEyOTk3NCIsInV6bXgiOiI3ZjkwMDA3Mjg5N2Y1OC05ODg2LTQyOGEtOWNjNy1mYjBlMTdlNjk2MGI1LTE3MzUxMDcwNDc4NDUzNTczMDgxMDItYjhhZThjYWQ3MjUzMTdhYjI5OTc0IiwicmQiOiJpb3Aub3JnIn0=
IOP Publishing
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know