Technical Briefs

Evaluation of Single-Use Radio Attenuating Gloves: From Technical Data to Clinical Practice

[+] Author and Article Information
L. Nguyen-Kim

Pharmacy Department,
Agence Générale des Equipements et Produits de Santé,
AP-HP, 6 rue du Fer à Moulin,
75005 Paris, France
e-mail: luc.nguyen-kim@eps.aphp.fr

H. Beaussier

Pharmacy Department,
Saint Joseph Hospital,
185 rue Raymond Losserand,
75014 Paris, France

C. Fargeot

Pharmacy Department,
Pitie Salpetrière Hospital,
47-83 Bd de l'hôpital,
75013 Paris, France

S. Payen

Radioprotection Department,
Pitie Salpetrière Hospital,
47-83 Bd de l'hôpital,
75013 Paris, France

J. Chiras

Neuroradiology Department,
Pitie Salpetrière Hospital,
47-83 Bd de l'hôpital,
75013 Paris, France

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 19, 2012; final manuscript received December 19, 2012; published online July 3, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Paul Iaizzo.

J. Med. Devices 7(3), 034501 (Jul 03, 2013) (4 pages) Paper No: MED-12-1042; doi: 10.1115/1.4024643 History: Received March 19, 2012; Revised December 19, 2012

Single-use radio-attenuating gloves are devices protecting the operator's hand by reducing the exposition to scattered radiations during radiological-guided intervention. Expensive, these devices are important, as they contribute to lessen the annual dose to which personals are exposed to. However, inconsistencies in their protection value have been reported between theoretical and clinical practice. In this study, we aim to highlight the normative bias existing in standard norms for radioprotective assessments. Using thermoluminescent captors positioned inside and outside the glove, we designed an EN1331-1 norm-inspired bench test with five brands of radio-attenuating gloves. At 100 keV and 56 cm away from the source, we measured indirect beam and attenuated doses in a clinical setting. From the attenuation index measured, we deduced attenuation rates. We then compared our results to their commercial technical data sheets. The assessed attenuating rates of the tested references were 20%, 30%, 32%, 15%, and 25%. Theoretical rates are, respectively, 38%, 43%, 30%, 26%, and 35%. Only one reference showed no difference between commercial and technical attenuating values (p = 0.12). The inconsistencies between observed and theoretical attenuation value show the importance of the conditions in which protection is assessed. Without complete information, the choice of a protective device as simple as a glove is biased, and this may lead to inappropriate protection of the operator, which should raise concern, as interventional radiology is now widespread in routine practice.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Valentin, J., 2000, “Avoidance of Radiation Injuries From Medical Interventional Procedures,” Ann. ICRP, 30, pp. 7–67. [PubMed]
Nusbacher, N., Pollak, L., and Bryk, D., 1978, “Shielding the Hand During Cross-Compression Angiography,” Radiology, 128(8), pp. 509–510. [PubMed]
Ullman, J. M., 1990, “Increasing the Usefulness of Disposable Lead Gloves,” Radiology, 174(2), p. 581. [PubMed]
Vano, E., Fernandez, J. M., Delgado, V., and Gonzalez, L., 1995, “Evaluation of Tungsten and Lead Surgical Gloves for Radiation Protection,” Health Phys., 68(6), pp. 855–858. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Calder, P. R., Tennent, T. D., and Allen, P. W., 2003, “Assessment of the Efficacy of Proguard RR-2 Radio–Protective Gloves During Forearm Manipulation,” Injury, 34(2), pp. 159–161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Guersen, J., Donadille, L., Rehel, J. L., Charvais, A., Zaknoune, R., Cassagnes, L., Chabrot, P., and Boyer, L., 2011, “Potential of Radiation Attenuation Gloves in Interventional Radiology: An Experimental Evaluation,” Radioprotection, 46(3), pp. 387–397. [CrossRef]
Back, D. L., Hilton, A. I., Briggs, T. W., Scott, J., Burns, M., and Warren, P., 2005, “Radiation Protection for Your Hands,” Injury, 36(12), pp. 1416–1420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Challa, K., Warren, S. G., Danak, S., and Bates, M. C., 2009, “Redundant Protective Barriers: Minimizing Operator Occupational Risk,” J. Interv. Cardiol., 22(6), pp. 299–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kelsey, C. A., and Mettler, F. A., 1990, “Flexible Protective Gloves: The Emperor's New Clothes?,” Radiology, 174(1), pp. 275–276. [PubMed]
Synowitz, M., and Kiwit, J., 2006, “Surgeon's Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Vertebroplasty,” J. Neurosurg. Spine., 4(2), pp. 106–109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Clasper, J. C., and Pinks, T., 1995, “Technical Note: An Assessment of X-Ray Protective Gloves,” Br. J. Radiol., 68(8), pp. 917–919. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
von Wrangel, A., Cederblad, A., and Rodriguez-Catarino, M., 2009, “Fluoroscopically Guided Percutaneous Vertebroplasty: Assessment of Radiation Doses and Implementation of Procedural Routines to Reduce Operator Exposure,” Acta Radiol., 50(6), pp. 490–496. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Robinson, J. C., 2008, “Value-Based Purchasing for Medical Devices,” Health Aff. (Millwood), 27(6), pp. 1523–1531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Example of sensors positioning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Average attenuation in setting 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Average attenuation in setting 2



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In