Primerjava učinkovitosti svinčenih in ne svinčenih zaščit : diplomsko delo

Smolič, Špela (author), Stipar, Klara (author), Mekiš, Nejc (mentor), Medič, Mojca (comentor), Škrk, Damijan (reviewer)

Uvod: Danes se v radiologiji za zaščito pred sevanjem uporabljajo zaščitna sredstva, ki jih namestimo med izhodni snop in pacientovo telo ali med sipano sevanje in pacientovo telo. Namen: Namen je ugotoviti ali obstajajo razlike v učinkovitosti med svinčenimi in ne svinčenimi zaščitami sredstvi pri različnih ekspozicijah v primarnem polju in na robu primarnega polja (sipano sevanje). Metode: V prvem delu naloge smo uporabili deskriptivno metodo in naredili pregled literature. Drugi del naloge smo opravili z eksperimentalno metodo. Merili smo prepustnost sevanja v primarnem polju in izven njega. Meritve smo izvedli s svinčenimi in ne svinčenimi zaščitami debelin 0,25 in 0,5 mm. Slikali smo pri pospeševalni napetosti od 40 do 150 kV, tako da smo vsako ekspozicijo povečali za 5 kV pri treh različnih vrednosti tokovnega sunka: 5, 25 in 50 mAs. Rezulati: V prvem sklopu smo grafično prikazali meritve v polju brez zaščite in z uporabo zaščit debeline 0,25 mm. V skoraj vseh primerih je Simadova ne svinčena zaščita zaustavila več rentgenskega sevanja. V drugem sklopu smo z uporabo zaščit debeline 0,5 mm grafično prikazali meritve izven polja, kjer so rezultati podobni in kažejo v prid ne svinčene zaščite. V tretjem sklopu so prikazani rezultati meritev v polju z debelino zaščit 0,25 mm. Pri tokovnem sunku 5 mAs in vseh izbranih pospeševalnih ima boljše rezultate svinčena zaščita, za ostale meritve pa ne svinčena. V zadnjem sklopu smo med seboj primerjali zaščite debeline 0,5 mm v polju. Ne svinčena zaščita ima v tem primeru večjo raven zaščite pri nižjih pospeševalnih napetostih, svinčena pa pri višjih. Razprava: Obe zaščiti, zelo dobro opravljata svojo nalogo zaščite - absorpcija rentgenskega sevanja. Ob pregledu prvih dveh sklopov smo ugotovili precejšnje razlike pri uporabi različnih zaščit debeline 0,25 mm. Rezultati so boljši pri ne svinčenih zaščitah. Pri zaščitah debeline 0,5 mm tako velikih razlik ne opazimo, zato težko dokažemo prednosti ene in druge. Razlike med njima so minimalne, a vseeno v prid Simadove zaščite. Zaključek: Dokazali smo, da je uporaba ne svinčenih zaščit smiselna. Absorbirajo namreč več rentgenskega sevanja od svinčenih, hkrati pa so bolj prijazna za uporabo, zaradi lažje teže.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: diplomska dela, radiološka tehnologija, zaščitna sredstva, svinčena zaščita, ne svinčena zaščita
• Work type: Bachelor thesis/paper
• Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
• Organization: ZF - Faculty of Health Sciences
• Place of publishing: Ljubljana
• Publisher: [Š. Smolič, K. Stipar]
• Year: 2020
• Number of pages: 54 str.
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-118687
• UDC: 616-07
• COBISS.SI-ID: 27027715
• Publication date in RUL: 30.08.2020

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Comparison of effectiveness of lead and no lead protection : diploma work

Abstract

Introduction: Today, radiology employs radiation protection equipment that is placed between the exit beam and the patient’s body or between scattered radiation and the patient’s body. Aim: The aim was to establish any possible differences in radiation blocking ability between lead and non-lead protection equipment at various exposures within and at the edge of the primary field (scattered radiation). Methods: In the first part of the thesis, we used the descriptive method and conducted a survey of literature. The second part of the thesis was carried out with the experimental method. We measured radiation transmittance within and outside the primary field. The measurements were conducted on lead and non-lead protection equipment of 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm thickness. The imaging was performed using accelerating voltages from 40 to 150 kV, so that each exposure was increased by 5 kV at three different mAs values: 5, 25, and 50. Results: In the first cluster, we graphically presented measurements performed in the primary field without protection equipment and with protection equipment of 0.25 mm thickness. In nearly all cases, Simad non-lead protection equipment blocked a higher amount of X-ray radiation. In the second cluster, we graphically presented measurements performed outside the primary field using protection equipment of 0.5 mm thickness; the results were similar and leaning in favour of non-lead protection equipment. The third cluster presented the results of measurements performed in the primary field using protection equipment of 0.25 mm thickness. Lead protection yielded better results at 5 mAs and with the use of all selected accelerated voltages, whereas non-lead protection showed better performance in all other measurements. In the last cluster, we compared protection equipment of 0.5 mm thickness in the primary field. In this case, non-lead protection equipment provided a higher level of shielding at lower accelerating voltages and lead protection equipment proved more efficient at higher accelerating voltages. Discussion: Both types of protection equipment performed well in absorbing X-ray radiation. On reviewing the first two clusters, we found considerable differences in the use of various types of protection equipment of 0.25 mm thickness, with non-lead protection yielding better results. On the other hand, no significant differences were found regarding protection equipment of 0.5 mm thickness, making it difficult to show the advantages of one over the other. The differences between the two were minimum, but still in favour of the Simad protection equipment. Conclusion: We demonstrated the use of non-lead protection equipment to be sensible because it absorbs a larger amount of X-ray radiation than lead protection equipment while also being more user-friendly by weighing less.

• Keywords: diploma theses, radiologic technology, protection equipment, lead radiation protection, non-lead radiation protection