Do you really need to wear a lead apron to get an X-ray?

Donning a shapeless lead apron might really feel like a routine a part of getting an X-ray. In idea, this heavy blanket is meant to guard the physique, notably the reproductive organs, from radiation. However is it actually obligatory?

In all probability not, for 2 essential causes, consultants advised Stay Science. First, the radiation dose from a typical X-ray is nominal and unlikely to trigger hurt. Second, as a result of X-ray radiation publicity ranges are low, no matter minor discount the lead apron gives is minimal and has no significant impression. For these causes, a number of medical organizations now suggest in opposition to radiation shielding for many sufferers, and hospitals are step by step phasing lead aprons out of their radiology departments.

“Using lead shielding for sufferers throughout their imaging process, notably in relation to shielding of reproductive organs, doesn’t seem like efficient for lowering the antagonistic results of radiation,” mentioned Stephen Graves, an assistant professor of radiology on the College of Iowa Carver School of Drugs. (The College of Iowa stopped utilizing lead aprons in the summertime of 2022.)

“For one thing like a dental X-ray or chest X-ray, the radiation publicity to reproductive organs is just like what a person receives by way of regular background radiation publicity from geological and cosmic sources,” Graves advised Stay Science in an e-mail. (In keeping with Graves, typical medical X-rays ship radiation doses just like these you’d expertise on a trans-Atlantic flight as a result of cosmic radiation.)

The truth is, along with missing clear advantages, lead aprons may even have downsides. “Using lead shielding can sometimes obscure the affected person anatomy being examined in diagnostic photographs, requiring the process to be repeated, successfully doubling the radiation publicity,” Graves mentioned.

Associated: How radioactive is the human physique?

What the science says

Caucasian blonde girl stands inside a panoramic dental x-ray machine at the orthodontist. She wears a ping lead apron over her shirt.

Affected person shielding suggestions throughout X-rays has modified through the years. (Picture credit score: wanderluster through Getty Pictures)

Lead has a excessive density that could be very arduous for radiation to penetrate. As such, lead aprons had been as soon as a staple of radiology, as they had been thought to guard sperm, eggs and fetuses from radiation-induced genetic mutations — a priority that led to federal rules and an elevated demand for such radiation shields. Nevertheless, there’s scant scientific proof to help this apply.

First, no analysis has demonstrated that radiation publicity can harm reproductive cells in ways in which would result in delivery defects or different poor being pregnant outcomes. Even progeny research of atomic bomb survivors whose reproductive organs had been uncovered to an atomic bomb explosion got here up empty, casting doubt on the declare that gonads require particular safety throughout X-rays.

As for the danger to fetuses, the American School of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ tips state: “With few exceptions, radiation publicity by way of radiography, computed tomography [CT] scan, or nuclear drugs imaging strategies is at a dose a lot decrease than the publicity related to fetal hurt.”

After which there have been the lead aprons themselves, which research discovered to be ineffective at meaningfully lowering X-ray publicity (and, as Graves talked about, may sometimes obscure the photographs and necessitate further X-rays). Nonetheless, it wasn’t till 2019 that these observations culminated in a landmark place assertion from the American Affiliation of Physicists in Drugs (AAPM), a scientific group centered on guaranteeing accuracy, security and high quality in the usage of radiation in medical procedures, arguing that “shielding throughout X-ray based mostly diagnostic imaging must be discontinued as routine apply” as a result of its tendency to obscure the picture and “the minimal to nonexistent profit” of the apply.

AAPM’s assertion opened the floodgates. “{Many professional} organizations have developed statements and proposals about affected person shielding, and conversations about tips on how to implement these adjustments are ongoing,” mentioned Rebecca Milman, division chief of radiological sciences on the College of Colorado and creator of the research upon which AAPM’s assertion was based mostly.

A consensus assertion on radiation shielding from a number of European medical organizations, as an example, got here out in 2021 and intently mirrored the AAPM’s conclusions.

However change has come slowly. Milman admitted that will probably be troublesome to persuade sufferers to ditch the aprons that physicians as soon as claimed would shield them from radiation.

“An important facet of this dialog is the notion of radiation danger, security, and the way this impacts the notion and use of affected person shielding,” Milman advised Stay Science in an e-mail. “How do we offer significant data to sufferers that can empower them to make knowledgeable choices?”

These questions are made extra salient by the nuances of the rising tips. Whereas doctor teams not suggest that sufferers put on lead aprons throughout X-rays, they nonetheless recommend that medical suppliers ought to put on protecting shielding fabricated from lead or exit the room to cut back publicity. Though that is sensible as a result of technicians face repeated publicity, sufferers might not instantly perceive that distinction in danger.

“Shielding insurance policies must be based mostly in science however versatile sufficient to account for particular person affected person wants,” Milman mentioned. “Amenities want to make sure that persons are conscious of the coverage, particularly the coverage represents a considerable change in apply. This implies speaking with radiologic technologists, physicists, radiologists, referring physicians, and sufferers in addition to giving them a possibility to ask questions in regards to the coverage.”

This text is for informational functions solely, and isn’t meant to supply medical recommendation.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.