TCT-557 Impact of a Suspended Lead Suit on Physician Radiation Doses Across Patient BMI Categories During Coronary Angiography J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep, 72 (13_Supplement) B223–B224. Refahiyat et al. showed a 95.0% reduction in deep dose equivalent [Hp(10)] for Zero-Gravity vs. traditional lead apron in morbidly obese patients in a study of 1,120 consecutive coronary artery cases. https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1745
Suspended lead suit and physician radiation doses during coronary angiography. Salcido-Rios, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;1-8. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ccd.30047
The Effects of Attenuation Head Caps and Other Common Lead Equivalent Shields on Operator Brain Exposures in the Interventional Environment. Gipson, et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017;28, Issue 2, Supplement, Page S183.
Comparison of Operator Eye Exposures When Working from Femoral Region, Side, or Head of Patient. Ray JM, Mohammad F, Taylor WB, Cura M, Savage C.
Abstract SIR 2012
Evaluation of a Suspended Personal Radiation Protection System vs. Conventional Apron and Shields in Clinical Interventional Procedures. Clare Savage, MD, Thomas M Seale IV, MD, Cathryn J Shaw, MD, et al.
Comparison of the Zerogravity™ Radiation Protection System vs. Standard Lead Apron Plus Ancillary Shielding During Clinical Interventional Procedures. Shaw, C, et al.
Abstract (Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Vol. 22, Issue 3, Supplement, Page S108).
Clinical Evaluation of the Zerogravity ™ Radiation Protection System for Interventionalists. Marichal DA, Savage CM, Bruner A, et al. Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Symposium of Endovascular Therapy, Jan 16-20, 2011, Miami Beach, FL.
Comparison of a Suspended Radiation Protection System vs. Standard Lead Apron for Radiation Exposure of a Simulated Interventionalist. Marichal DA, Anwar T, Kirsch D, et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22:437-442. (Full Manuscript).
Determination of Minimum Effective Height of Transparent Radiation Face Shielding for Fluoroscopy. Prater S, et al. Health Physics Journal 2011;101 Suppl 3:S135-141.
Clinical Evaluation of Protective Garments with Respect to Garment Characteristics and Manufacturer Label Information. Lichliter et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017 Jan;28(1):148-155. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.08.006.
ISET abstract and poster
Abstract and access to full manuscript (electronic)
Get the Lead off Our Backs! Rees, CR and Duncan BWC. Techniques in Vascular and Interventional Radiology, March 2018, Vol 21, Issue 1, PP7-15.
The effects of aprons, suspended protection systems, and mobile shields on radiation exposures to the chests and heads of interventional radiologists in clinical practice J. Oros, A. Lichliter, C. Rees
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2018 Vol. 29, Issue 4, S64–S65.
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology, March 17-22, 2018, Los Angeles, CA. 3:27 PM Abstract No. 144
Occupational exposure to physicians working with Zero-Gravity TM protection system in haemodynamic and electrophysiology labs and the assessment of its performance against a standard ceiling suspended shield. Domienik et al. Radiation and Environmental Bipohysics. Published online Feb 26, 2022.
Occupational eye lens radiation dose while performing interventional procedures over 18 months using a face-shield equipped suspended radiation protection system. Kwarcinski et al. Full manuscript text
Eighteen-Month Personnel Monitoring Dosimetry Results Using a Suspended Radiation Protection System with Face Shield
A. Lichliter, B. Yoder, C. Rees. Presented at the International Symposium of Endovascular Therapy (ISET), February 3-7, Hollywood FL. Published in the Abstracts from The International Symposium on Endovascular Therapy (ISET) 2018, J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29:e1–e26
Abstract in J of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Full manuscript text