Ces radiol. 2026, 80(1):56-62 | DOI: 10.55095/CesRadiol2026/011

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Peter Hiles1, Patrick Gilligan2, 3, John Damilakis4, 5, Eric Briers6, Cristian Candela-Juan2, 7, Dario Faj8, 9, Shane Foley10, 11, Guy Frija4, 12, Claudio Granata13, 14, Hugo de las Heras Gala2, 15, Ruben Pauwels16, Marta Sans Merce8, 17, Georgios Simantirakis8, 18, Eliseo Vano4, 19
1 Nemocnice Glan Clwyd, Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire, Spojené království
2 Evropská federace organizací pro lékařskou fyziku, Utrecht, Nizozemsko
3 Mater Private Hospital, Eccles St., Dublin, Irsko
4 Evropská radiologická společnost - EuroSafe Imaging, Vídeň, Rakousko
5 University of Crete, Iraklion, Kréta, Řecko
6 Člen ESR-Patient Advisory Group, Patient Advocate, Hasselt, Belgie
7 Centro Nacional de Dosimetría (CND), Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria, Valencie, Španělsko
8 European Radiation Dosimetry Group, Neuherberg, Německo
9 Fakulta zubního lékařství a zdravotnictví, Osijek, Chorvatsko
10 Evropská federace radiologických společností, Utrecht, Belgie
11 Radiography and Diagnostic Imaging, University College Dublin, Dublin, Irsko
12 Université de Paris, Paříž, Francie
13 Evropská společnost dětské radiologie, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, Francie
14 Institut pro zdraví matek a dětí, IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Terst, Itálie
15 Spolkový úřad pro radiační ochranu, Oberschleißheim, Německo
16 Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Dánsko
17 Ženevské univerzitní nemocnice, Ženeva, Švýcarsko
18 Greek Atomic Energy Commis-sion, Agia Paraskevi, Atény, Řecko
19 Radiologické oddělení, Univerzita Complutense, Madrid, Španělsko Korespondence:

Kontaktní ochranné stínění pacientů se na radiologických odděleních používá již mnoho let, aby se snížily účinky a rizika ionizujícího záření na některé orgány. Nové technologie v projekčním RTG zobrazování a CT skenování, jako jsou digitální receptory a systémy expoziční automatiky, snížily dávky a zlepšily konzistentnost obrazu (napříč pacienty). Tyto změny a lepší pochopení přínosů i rizik spojených s používáním ochranného stínění vedly k revizi jeho používání v radiologii. Řada profesních organizací již v tomto ohledu vydala pokyny. Tento dokument představuje současný konsenzuální názor hlavních odborných společností zabývajících se radiační ochranou a zobrazováním v Evropě: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). Vychází z odborných doporučení skupiny Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS), která byla vytvořena za účelem vytvoření konsenzu v této oblasti. Toto doporučení by mělo být srozumitelné a snadno použitelné. Je zamýšleno jako návod a vzniklo prací multidisciplinárního týmu. Předpisy, zvyklosti a praxe v oblasti používání ochranného stínění pacientů se v Evropě značně liší, a toto doporučení si klade za cíl být podkladem pro iniciaci změn, které budou přínosné pro pacienty i personál.

Keywords: konsenzus, tomografie (RTG výpočetní), dávka záření, ochranné pomůcky, radiologie.

Accepted: March 20, 2026; Published: May 1, 2026  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hiles P, Gilligan P, Damilakis J, Briers E, Candela-Juan C, Faj D, et al.. European consensus on patient contact shielding. Ces radiol. 2026;80(1):56-62. doi: 10.55095/CesRadiol2026/011.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection; revised December 1, 1954. Br J Radiol Suppl. 1955; 6: 1-92
    2. SSK 2018. Use of patient radiation protection equipment in the diagnostic application of X-rays on humans. Recommendation by the German Commission on Radiological Protection. Adopted at the 297th meeting of the German Commission on Radiological Protection on 13. and 14. December 2018. Available from: https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse_E/2018/2018-12-13_Patient_E.html. Accessed November 2021
    3. AAPM 2019. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Position statement on the use of patient gonadal and fetal shielding. AAPM Policy number PP 32-A (2019). Available from: https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=468&type=PP. Accessed November 2021
    4. Hiles P, Benson E, Hughes H, et al. Guidance on using shielding on patients for diagnostic radiology applications. A joint report of the ,British Institute of Radiology (BIR), Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM), Public Health England (PHE), Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR) and the Society for Radiological Protection (SRP) (2020). Available from: https://www.bir.org.uk/media/ 416143/final_patient_shielding_guidance.r1.pdf. Accessed November 2021
    5. Marsh RM, Silosky MS. Patient shielding in diagnostic imaging: Discontinuing a Legacy Practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212(4): 755757. Available from: https://doi. org/ 10. 2214/ AJR. 18. 20508 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Candela-Juan C, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Sans Merce M, et al. Use of outof-field contact shielding on patients in medical imaging: a review of current guidelines, recommendations and legislative documents. PhysMed 2021; 86: 44-56. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.05.017 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. Gilligan P, Damilakis J. Patient shielding: the need for a European consensus statement. Phys Med. 2021; 82: 266-268. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Nielsen JC, Lin YJ, de Oliveira Figueiredo MJ, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome, in the right population. Europace 2020; 22: 1147-1148. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa065 Go to original source...
    9. Iball GR, Brettle DS. Use of lead shielding on pregnant patients undergoing CT scans: results of an international survey. Radiography 2011; 17(2): 102-108. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2010.12.005 Go to original source...
    10. Hohl C, Mahnken AH, Klotz E, et al. Radiation dose reduction to the male gonads during MDCT: the effectiveness of a lead shield. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(1): 128-130. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840128 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Zalokar N, Mekis N. Efficacy of breast shielding during head computed tomography examination. Radiol Oncol. 2020; 55(1): 116-120. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0044 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Kemerink GJ, Kutterer G, Kicken PJ, et al. The skin dose of pelvic radiographs since 1896. Insights Imaging 2019; 10: 39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0710-1 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Rehani MM, Hauptmann M. Estimates of the number of patients with high cumulative doses through recurrent CT exams in 35 OECD countries. Phys Med. 2020; 76: 173-176. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.07.014 Go to original source...
    14. Li X, Hirsch JA, Rehani MM, Ganguli S, Yang K, Liu B. (2020) Radiation effective dose above 100 mSv from fluoroscopically guided intervention: frequency and patient medical condition. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 215(2): 433-440. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22227 Go to original source...
    15. 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. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0130-3 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. 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. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25742247 7 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Kaplan SL, Magill D, Felice MA, Xiao R, Ali S, Zhu X. Female gonadal shielding with automatic exposure control increases radiation risks. Pediatr Radiol. 2018; 48(2): 227-234. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3996-5 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Gursu S, Gursu T, Camurcu Y, Yildirim T, Gursu A, Şahin V. Efficacy of gonadal shielding in pediatric pelvis X-rays. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2013; 24: 87-90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2013.20 Go to original source...
    19. HPA 2011. Health Protection Agency. Radiation risks from medical X-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. HPA CRCE 028 (2011). Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medical-x-rays-radiation-risks-by-age-and-sex-of-patient. Accessed November 2021
    20. Dauer LT, Casciotta KA, Erdi YE, Rothenberg LN. Radiation dose reduction at a price: the effectiveness of a male gonadal shield during helical CT scans. BMC Med Imaging 2007; 7: 5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-7-5 Go to original source...
    21. ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 2007; 37: 22.
    22. NVMBR 2017. Richtlijn Gonadenafscherming voor conventionele radiologie en CT. Utrecht. Available from: https://www.nvmbr.nl/publicatiebestanden/NVMBR%20Richtlijn%20Gonadenafscherming%20mei%202017.pdf
    23. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Vrieze TJ, McCollough CH. Lead shielding in pediatric chest CT: effect of apron placement outside the scan volume on radiation dose reduction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212(1): 151-156. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19405 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Begano D, Soderberg M, Bolejko A (2020) To use or not use patient shielding on pregnant women undergoing CT pulmonary angiography: a phantom study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 189(4):458-465. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa059 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. NCRP (2019). Radiation protection in dentistry and oral and maxillofacial imaging. National Council on Radiation Protection ad Measurements Report No. 177.
    26. Johnson KB, Ludlow JB. Intraoral radiographs: a comparison of dose and risk reduction with collimation and thyroid shielding. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151(10): 726-734. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2020.06.019 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Pauwels R, Horner K, Vassileva J, Rehani MM. Thyroid shielding in cone beam computed tomography: recommendations towards appropriate use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019; 48(7): 20190014. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190014 Go to original source...
    28. Wiechmann D, Decker A, Hohoff A, Kleinheinz J, Stamm T. The influence of lead thyroid collars on cephalometric landmark identification. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104(4): 560-568. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.09.012 Go to original source...
    29. Sansare KP, Khanna V, Karjodkar F. Utility of thyroid collars in cephalometric radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40(8): 471-475. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25040799 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Hoogeveen RC, Rottke D, van der Stelt PF, Berkhout WE. Dose reduction in orthodontic lateral cephalography: dosimetric evaluation of a novel cephalographic thyroid protector (CTP) and anatomical cranial collimation (ACC). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44: 20140260. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140260 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    31. Poon R, Badawy MK. Radiation dose and risk to the lens of the eye during CT examinations of the brain. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019; 63(6):786-794. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12950 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    32. Safari MJ, Wong JH, Kadir KA, et al. Real-time eye lens dose monitoring during cerebral angiography procedures. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(1): 7986. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3818-9 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Sanchez RM, Vano E, Fernandez JM, Rosati S, Lopez-Ibor L. Radiation doses in patient eye lenses during interventional neuroradiology procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016; 37(3): 402-407. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4549 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    34. Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Vrahoriti H, Kontakis G, Varveris H, Gourtsoyiannis N. Embryo/fetus radiation dose and risk for dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations. Osteoporos Int. 2002; 13(9): 716-722. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980200098 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    35. Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Prassopoulos P, Dimovasili E, Varveris H, Gourtsoyiannis N. Conceptus radiation dose and risk from chest screen-film radiography. Eur Radiol. 2003; 13(2): 406-412. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1352-z Go to original source...
    36. Ryckx N, Sans-Merce M, Schmidt S, Poletti P-A, Verdun FR. The use of out-of-plane high Z patient shielding for fetal dose reduction in computed tomography: Literature review and comparison with Monte-Carlo calculations of an alternative optimisation technique. Phys Med. 2018; 02018(48): 156-161. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.03.017 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    37. Jaber M, Harvill M, Qiao E. Lead aprons worn by interventional radiologists contain pathogenic organisms including MRSA and tinea species. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25(3): S99-S100. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.12.279 Go to original source...
    38. Balter S, Rodriguez MA, Pike JA, Kleiman NJ. Microbial contamination risk and disinfection of radiation protective garments. Health Phys. 2021; 120(2): 123-130. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001387 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    39. Sowinski JS, Gunderman RB. Transgender patients: what radiologists need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210: 1106-1110. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18904 Go to original source...
    40. Larjava HRS, Eneh CTM, Niiniviita HM. To shield or not to shield: shielding may have unintended effects on patient dose in CT. Eur Radiol. 2024; 34: 2480-2486. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10211-3 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content