The Disadvantages of Lead Aprons and the Need for Innovative Protective Clothing: A Survey Study on Healthcare Workers' Opinions and Experiences

Abstract

The use of state-of-the-art technical textiles instead of lead aprons is of great importance due to their lightweight, flexible, non-toxic and comfortable composition. In this study, we aimed to determine the disadvantages experienced by healthcare workers due to lead aprons and their opinions about innovative protective clothing. The survey, comprising seventeen questions, aimed to gather demographic information, design and physical properties of respondents' lead aprons, functionality, comfort, and performance of current protective clothing, and determine future design requirements. Within the scope of the research, a survey was administered to 52 radiation workers, and the results were analyzed statistically. Radiology technicians comprised nearly half of the respondents (34%), followed by physicians (25.5%) and nurses (19.1%). The most important problems encountered by the respondents during the use of lead aprons were defined as being heavy, restricting movement, and not fitting the body properly. Among the comfort descriptors, inability to move comfortably, weight and air permeability were considered "completely important" by the respondents, respectively. The study showed that 26.92% of the participants experienced complications with their lumbar spine, while 23.08% reported concerns with their cervical spine. Survey participants noted low air permeability and thermal comfort in lead aprons, making them unsuitable for various anatomical structures. To overcome these issues, technical textiles with easier shapeability and improved performance, such as mechanical properties and insulation, could be used instead.In order to overcome these disadvantages, producing and using technical textiles instead of lead aprons will provide a significant advantage.

Keywords

• Lead apron
• Comfort properties
• Radiation safety
• Questionnaire survey
• Questionnaire survey

References

1. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization, Radiology, 2004;230(3):619–28.
2. Morishima Y, Chida K, Katahira Y. The effectiveness of additional lead-shielding drape and low pulse rate fluoroscopy in protecting staff from scatter radiation during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), Jpn J Radiol, 2019;37(2):95–101.
3. Jiang X, Zhu X, Chang C, Liu S, Luo X. X-ray shielding structural and properties design for the porous transparent BaSO4/cellulose nanocomposite membranes, Int J Biol Macromol, 2019;139:793–800.
4. Chung DDL, Eddib AA. Effect of fiber lay-up configuration on the electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness of continuous carbon fiber polymer-matrix composite, Carbon, 2019;141:685–91.
5. Şahin MC, Manisa K. Evaluation of X-ray shielding ability of tungsten rubber: A GAMOS Monte Carlo study, Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Arts and Science Journal of Science, 2023;18(1):1–9.
6. AbuAlRoos NJ, Baharul Amin NA, Zainon R. Conventional and new lead-free radiation shielding materials for radiation protection in nuclear medicine: A review, Radiat Phys Chem, 2019;165:108439.
7. Moore B, vanSonnenberg E, Casola G, Novelline RA. The relationship between back pain and lead apron use in radiologists, Am J Roentgenol, 1992;158(1):191–3.
8. Andrew S, Abdelmonem MR, Kohli S, Dabke H. Evaluation of back pain and lead apron use among staff at a district general hospital, Cureus, 2021.

9. Jiang MD, Chen MD, Liu MS, Fu MD, Xue MD, Fu MD, et al. Body pain: An unheeded personal health hazard in interventional cardiologists: A national online cross-sectional survey study in China, Int J Cardiol, 2022;350:27–32.
10. Li Y, Wong ASW. Clothing biosensory engineering, 1st ed. Woodhead Publishing, 2006.
11. Openshaw S, Minder G, Long T, Ford M, Taylor E, Witherow W. Ergonomics and design: A reference guide, 2006.
12. Özok A, Kaya O. Ergonomi ve tasarım ilişkisi, II. Uluslararası Akdeniz’de Güzel Sanatlar Sempozyumu ve Kültür Sanat Çalıştayı; 2017. Antalya, Türkiye.
13. Rajaraman P, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Freedman DM, Hauptmann M, Ron E, et al. Lung cancer risk among US radiologic technologists, 1983–1998, Int J Cancer, 2006;119(11):2481–6.
14. Maghrabi H, Deb P, Vijayan A, Wang L. An overview of lead aprons for radiation protection: Are they doing their best? Proceedings of the 8th Textile Bioengineering and Informatics Symposium; 2015, Zadar, Croatia.
15. Oglakcioglu N. Design of functional knitted fabrics for medical corsets with high clothing comfort characteristics, J Ind Text, 2016;45(6):1009–25.
16. Utkun E. A review of literature about the use of artificial neural networks systems on prediction of clothing comfort, Pamukkale Univ J Eng Sci, 2014;20(3):272–80.
17. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses, Behav Res Methods, 2009;41(4):1149–60.
18. Jum CN. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 1994.
19. Mohd Ridzwan SF, Bhoo-Pathy N, Isahak M, Wee LH. Perceptions on radioprotective garment usage and underlying reasons for non-adherence among medical radiation workers from public hospitals in a middle-income Asian setting: A qualitative exploration, Heliyon, 2019;5:e02478.
20. Maghrabi HA, Alqurni AS. Textile design for diagnostic X-ray shielding garments and comfort enhancement for female users, 2017.
21. Slater K. Comfort properties of textiles, Text Prog, 1977;9(1):1–70.
22. Günther K, Giebing C, Askani A, Leisegang T, Krieg M, Kyosev Y, et al. Cellulose/inorganic-composite fibers for producing textile fabrics of high X-ray absorption properties, Mater Chem Phys, 2015;167:125–35.
23. Cheng KB, Cheng TW, Nadaraj RN, Dev VRG, Neelakandan R. Electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of the twill copper woven fabrics, J Reinf Plast Compos, 2006;25(7):699–709.
24. Özdemir H, Camgöz B. Gamma radiation shielding effectiveness of cellular woven fabrics, J Ind Text, 2018;47(5):712–26.
25. Akebi T, Matsugaki R, Ono T. Relationship between wearing a lead apron and work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A questionnaire survey of Japanese radiological technologists, Acta Med Okayama, 2022;76(6):541–5.
26. Al-Makhamreh H, Al-Bitar F, Saadeh A, Al-Ani A, Azzam M, Alkhulaifat D, et al. Evaluating the physical, psychosocial, and ergonomic burden of lead aprons among Jordanian interventionists: A nationwide study, Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 2022;28(6):2501–8.
27. Krishnan KS, Raju G, Shawkataly O. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Psychological and physical risk factors, Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021;18(17):9361.
28. Park JH, Park JH. Association among work-related musculoskeletal disorders, job stress, and job attitude of occupational therapists, Occup Ther Health Care, 2017;31(1):34–43.
29. Bae YH, Min KS. Associations between work-related musculoskeletal disorders, quality of life, and workplace stress in physical therapists, Ind Health, 2016;54(4):347–53.
30. Hout JD, Ryu J. The association between musculoskeletal disorders and lead apron use in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Saf Sci, 2025;181:106669.
31. Goldstein JA, Stephen B, Michael C, John H, Lloyd WK. Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: Prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice, Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2004;63(4):407–11.
32. Rees CR, Duncan BWC. Get the lead off our backs, Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, 2018;21(1):7–15.