Current State of Gonadal Shielding in Medical Imaging: A Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/ROJ-6-137Keywords:
Radiography, Gonadal lead protection, Dose, Radiation protection, RegulationAbstract
Introduction
In recent times the benefits of using gonadal shielding have been brought into question. Several professional bodies have released
positional statements in support of ceasing the use of gonadal shields. However, in Australia the regulatory authority for radiation
has not commented to date. This literature review aims to explore the risks and benefits of using lead protection and to establish
the current state of the use of gonadal shields in clinical practice.
Methods
A search of the literature was conducted using online databases under the subject “Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences”. Key
terms and phrases included “lead protection”, “plain film imaging”, “lead shielding”, “gonadal shielding”, “X-ray”, “radiography”, “pelvic radiography”,
“radiation protection”, “methods”, “education” and “gonadal shielding”. Articles pertaining to radiation therapy, literature reviews
and those not in English were excluded.
Results and Discussion
Gonad shields are often poorly used despite agreement of what constitutes accurate and inaccurate shielding. Inaccurate shielding
relates to both inappropriate size and inaccurate positioning of shields. Retrospective studies demonstrated a higher incidence of
inaccurate gonadal shield placement in females compared to males. Inaccurate shielding had implications for patients such as obscuration
of important anatomy and pathology and increased radiation dose if repeat X-rays were required to correct positioning
errors. Shield design innovation was identified as a future area of research that could assist with overcoming these errors. Where
gonad shielding was found to be of benefit in patients with conditions that require regular follow-up imaging. This is especially
important in conditions affecting children and adolescents who have increased radiosensitivity and longer life expectancy.
Conclusion
Studies have demonstrated high incidence of inaccurately positioned gonad shields for female patients, which leads to repeated
X-ray images and increased dose to patients. However, shielding has been shown to be beneficial for patients requiring frequent
X-ray examinations to reduce cumulative radiation dose. Establishing a standardised protocol regarding the application of gonadal
shields, supported by regulatory agencies, is imperative.
References
Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia. Professional ca-pabilities for medical radiation practitioners. https://www.medic-alradiationpracticeboard.gov.au/registration/professional-capabil-ities.aspx. Accessed January 25, 2021.
Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists: Physics, Biology and Protection. 10th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.
Johnston JN, Fauber TL. Essentials of Radiographic Physics and Im-aging. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Mosby; 2012.
Jeukens C, Kütterer G, Kicken PJ, et al. Gonad shielding in pelvic radiography: modern optimised X-ray systems might allow its discontinuation. Insights Imaging. 2020; 11(1): 15. doi: 10.1186/ s13244-019-0828-1
Frantzen MJ, Robben S, Postma AA, Zoetelief J, Wildberger JE, Kemerink GJ. Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: disadvantages prevail over benefit. Insights Imaging. 2012; 3(1): 23- 32. doi: 10.1007/s13244-011-0130-3
Ozasa K, Cullings HM, Ohishi W, Hida A, Grant EJ. Epidemio-logical studies of atomic bomb radiation at the radiation effects research foundation. Int J Radiat Biol. 2019; 95(7): 879-891. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1569778
Verdun FR, Bochud F, Gundinchet F, Aroua A, Schnyder P, Meuli R. Quality initiatives radiation risk: What you should know to tell your patient. Radio Graphics. 2008; 28(7): 1807-1816. doi: 10.1148/rg.287085042
Hayre CM, Blackman S, Carlton K, Eyden A. Attitudes and per-ceptions of radiographers applying lead (Pb) protection in general radiography: An ethnographic study. Radiography. 2018; 24(1): e13- e18. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2017.07.010
Shanley C, Matthews K. A questionnaire study of radiogra-phy educator opinions about patient lead shielding during digi-tal projection radiography. Radiography. 2018; 24(4): 328-333. doi:
1016/j.radi.2018.04.001 10. MacKay M, Hancy C, Crowe A, D’Rozario R, Ng C. Attitudes of medical imaging technologists on use of gonad shielding in general radiography. Radiographer. 2013; 59(2): 35-39. doi: 10.1002/ j.2051-3909.2012.tb00172.x
Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT). Position statement gonadal shielding. https://www.as-mirt.org/asmirt_core/wp-content/uploads/2464.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed February 1, 2021.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). AAPM position statement on the use of patient gonadal and fetal shielding. https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details. asp?id=468&type=PP. Published 2019. Accessed February 24, 2021.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-ments (NCRP). NCRP reccomendations for ending routine go-nadal shielding during abdominal and pelvic radiography. https:// ncrponline.org/wp-content/themes/ncrp/PDFs/Statement13. pdf. Published 2021. Accessed February 25, 2021.
Warlow T, Walker-Birch P, Cosson P. Gonad shielding in pae-diatric pelvic radiography: Effectiveness and practice. Radiography. 2014; 20(3): 178-182. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2014.01.002 12 Mc Inerney J, et al
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. https://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP_ Publication_103-Annals_of_the_ICRP_37(2-4)-Free_extract.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2021.
Fisher DR, Fahey FH. Appropriate use of effective dose in radiation protection and risk assessment. Health Phys. 2017; 113(2): 102-109. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000674
Kemerink GJ, Kütterer G, Kicken PJ, Van Engelshoven JMA, Simon KJ, Wildberger JE. The skin dose of pelvic radiographs since 1896. Insights Imaging. 2019; 10(1): 39. doi: 10.1186/s13244- 019-0710-1
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Ionising radiation and health. https://www.arpansa. gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/factsheets/IonisingRadia-tionandHealth.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed February 28, 2021.
Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency (AR-PANSA). Having a scan? A guide for medical imaging. ARPANSA. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/ rpop/patienthandout.pdf. Published 2021. Accessed May 13, 2021.
Davies BH, Manning-Stanley AS, Hughes VJ, Ward AJ. The im-pact of gonad shielding in anteroposterior (AP) pelvis projections in an adult: A phantom study utilising digital radiography (DR). Radiography. 2020; 26(3): 240-247. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.01.007
Sikand M, Stinchcombe S, Livesley PJ. Study on the use of go-nadal protection shields during paediatric pelvic X-rays. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003; 85(6): 422-425. doi: 10.1308/003588403322520852
Gul A, Zafar M, Maffulli N. Gonadal shields in pelvic radio-graphs in pediatric patients. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2005; 63(1-2): 13-14.
Fawcett SL, Barter SJ. The use of gonad shielding in paediat-ric hip and pelvis radiographs. BJR. 2009; 82(977): 363-370. doi: 10.1259/bjr/86609718
Kenny N, Hill J. Gonad protection in young orthopaedic patients. Br Med J. 1992; 304(6839): 1411-1413. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.304.6839.1411
Lee MC, Lloyd J, Solomito MJ. Poor utility of gonadal shielding for pediatric pelvic radiographs. Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4): e623-627. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170418-03
McCarty M, Waugh R, McCallum H, Montgomery RJ, Aszke-nasy OM. Paediatric pelvic imaging: Improvement in gonad shield placement by multidisciplinary audit. Pediatric Radiology. 2001; 31(9): 646-649. doi: 10.1007/s002470100515
Karami V, Zabihzadeh M, Shams N, Sarikhani S. Evaluation of the prevalence and utility of gonad shielding in pediatrics un-dergoing pelvic X-ray. Int J Pediatr. 2016; 4(11): 3735-3740. doi: 10.22038/ijp.2016.7589 Review | Volume 6 | Issue 1|
Wainwright AM. Shielding reproductive organs of orthopae-dic patients during pelvic radiography. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000; 82(5): 318-321.
Kaplan SL, Magill D, Felice MA, Xiao R, Sayed A, Zhu X. Female gonadal shielding with automatic exposure control in-creases radiation risks. Pediatric Radiology. 2018; 48(2): 227-234. doi: 10.1007/s00247-017-3996-5
Tsai Y-S, Liu Y-S, Chuang M-T, et al. Shielding during X-ray examination of pediatric female patients with developmen-tal dysplasia of the hip. J Radiol Prot. 2014; 34(4): 801-809. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/34/4/801
Fawcett SL, Gomez AC, Barter SJ, Ditchfield M, Set P. More harm than good? The anatomy of misguided shielding of the ovaries. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1016): e442-e447. doi: 10.1259/ bjr/25742247
Theakston V. Development of the reproductive system. Teach me anatomy. https://teachmeanatomy.info/the-basics/embryol-ogy/reproductive-system/. Published 2020. Accessed April 18, 2021.
Allan PL, Weston MJ, Baxter GM. Clinical Ultrasound. 3rd ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2011.
Bardo DME, Black M, Schenk K, Zaritzky MF. Location of the ovaries in girls from newborn to 18 years of age: Reconsider-ing ovarian shielding. Pediatric Radiology. 2009; 39(3): 253-259. doi: 10.1007/s00247-008-1094-4
Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010
Kabbani A, Gaillard F. Shenton line. Radiopaedia. https:// radiopaedia.org/articles/shenton-line. Published 2009. Accessed April 22, 2021.
Somasundaram E, Brady SL, Strauss KJ. Achievable dose re-ductions with gonadal shielding for children and adults during ab-dominal/pelvic radiographic examinations: A monte carlo simula-tion. Med Phys. 2020; 47(11): 5514-5522. doi: 10.1002/mp.14495
Kumar A, Chau WW, Hung ALH, Wong JKT, Ng BKW, Cheng JCY. Gonadal shield: Is it the albatross hanging around the neck of developmental dysplasia of the hip research? J Child Orthop. 2018; 12(6): 606-613. doi: 10.1302/1863-2548.12.180133
Buissink C, Alrowily M, Dougoud C, et al. Impact of gonad shielding for AP pelvis on dose and image quality on different fe-Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/ Review | Volume 6 | Issue 1| Mc Inerney J, et al male sizes: A phantom study. Radiography (Lond). 2020; 26 Suppl 2: S71-S78. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.06.013
Storer SK, Skaggs DL. Developmental dysplasia of the hip. Am Fam Physician. 2006; 74(8): 1310-1316.
Zucker EJ, Lee EY, Restrepo R, Eisenberg RL. Hip disorders in children. Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201(6): W776-W796. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.13.10623
Sarkissian EJ, Sankar WN, Zhu X, Wu CH, Flynn JM. Radio-graphic follow-up of DDH in infants: Are X-rays necessary after a normalized ultrasound? J Pediatr Orthop. 2015; 35(6): 551-555. doi: 10.1097/bpo.0000000000000326
Hesper T, Zilkens C, Bittersohl B, Krauspe R. Imaging mo-dalities in patients with slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Child Orthop. 2017; 11: 99-106. doi: 10.1302/1863-2548-11-160276
Oakley PA, Ehsani NN, Harrison DE. 5 reasons why scoliosis X-rays are not harmful. Dose Response. 2020; 18(3): 1559325820957797. doi: 10.1177/1559325820957797
Oetgen ME, Matthews AL, Martin BD, Hanway J, Kelly S, Blakemore L. Radiographic resource utilization in the initial refer-ral and evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. JAAOS. 2018; 26(12): 441-445. doi: 10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00142
Palmer SH, Starritt HC, Paterson M. Radiation protection of the ovaries in young scoliosis patients. Eur Spine J. 1998; 7(4): 278- 281. doi: 10.1007/s005860050075
Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M. Management decisions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly affect patient ra-diation exposure. Spine J. 2014; 14(9): 1984-1990. doi: 10.1016/j. spinee.2013.11.055
Barcham N, Egan I, Dowd SB. Gonadal protection methods in neonatal chest radiography. Radiol Technol. 1997; 69(2): 157-161.
Nead KT, Mitra N, Weathers B, et al. Lower abdominal and pel-vic radiation and testicular germ cell tumor risk. PLoS One. 2020; 15(11): e0239321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239321
Winfeld M, Strubel N, Pinkney L, et al. Relative distribution of pertinent findings on portable neonatal abdominal radiographs: Can we shield the gonads? Pediatr Radiol. 2013; 43(10): 1295-302. doi: 10.1007/s00247-013-2700-7
Tofthagen C. Threats to validity in retrospective studies. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2012; 3(3): 181-183. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2012.3.3.7
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Radiology (ROJ) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.