Radiation protection in interventional radiology: survey results of attitudes and use.

PURPOSE To assess attitudes of interventional radiologists toward personal radiation protection and the use of radiation protection devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS Invitations to an anonymous online survey that comprised eight questions focused on operator attitudes toward radiation protection devices were sent via e-mail to the active membership of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR): a total of 3,158 e-mail invitations. A single reminder e-mail was sent. RESULTS There were 504 survey responders (16% response rate). Reported radiation safety device use included lead apron (99%), thyroid shield (94%), leaded eyeglasses (54%), ceiling-suspended leaded shield (44%), rolling leaded shields (12%), ceiling-suspended/rolling lead-equivalent apron (4%), radiation-attenuating sterile surgical gloves (1%), and sterile lead-equivalent patient-mounted drape (4%). Reasons commonly cited for not using certain devices were comfort (eyewear), ease of use (mounted shields), and lack of availability (rolling/hanging shields and patient-mounted shields). CONCLUSIONS Interventionalists have an array of tools from which to choose for personal radiation protection; however, for a variety of reasons related to lack of availability or choice, these tools are not universally employed. Further study may be of value to clarify why comfort was cited most often as the primary barrier to the use of protective eyewear and difficulty of use was cited as the primary barrier to use of mounted shields (despite reporting that concern for radiation-induced injury to the eye is paramount). It may also be of interest to further study why certain devices with demonstrable protection effects are not readily available, such as rolling/hanging and patient-mounted shields.