Interventional Radiology Procedures

Author(s):  
Leslie B. Scorza

Interventional radiology (IR) is a specialty often called on to help solve many different clinical problems. Sometimes, that help comes by obtaining a diagnosis, other times by treatment, and still other times by both. The array of problems for which an IR consultation can be helpful is quite broad. Some IR procedures, which are described in more detail in this chapter, include, Abscess drainage, Arterial procedures and interventions, Biliary procedures and interventions, Gastrointestinal procedures and interventions, Genitourinary procedures and interventions, Intraoperative cases, Noninvasive vascular imaging, Percutaneous oncologic interventions, Percutaneous biopsies, Venous procedures and interventions, Venous access. The anesthesia needed to accomplish these procedures, just like the procedures themselves, varies widely. Anesthesia support can range from none at all up to and including general anesthesia. However, the majority of these procedures can be successfully accomplished with the use of “sedation and analgesia,” also known as moderate sedation.

2021 ◽  
pp. 861-871
Author(s):  
Tarun Sabharwal ◽  
Nicos I. Fotiadis ◽  
Andy Adam

Interventional radiology uses image guidance to perform minimally invasive therapeutic and diagnostic procedures. It is an integral part of the multidisciplinary team managing patients with cancer. Interventional radiology is involved in all stages of the cancer patient’s journey starting from performing image-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of cancer, venous access procedures, and therapeutic procedures, and focuses on the palliation of symptoms and improvement in the quality of life. All interventional procedures carry some risk, which is related to the underlying condition, the nature of the procedure, and the experience of the radiologist. Therefore, it is important in patients with advanced malignant disease receiving palliative care to contemplate only those procedures that will alleviate symptoms, and in which the potential benefits outweigh the risks. This chapter presents the drainage, stenting, feeding, embolization, ablation, and supportive interventional radiology procedures which could potentially benefit patients undergoing palliative care. The focus will be on the indications, contraindications, and likely outcomes, rather than on detailed technical descriptions.


Author(s):  
Rahmi Oklu

Most patients in an intensive care unit are critically ill, hemodynamically unstable, and have multiple comorbidities. Interventional radiology procedures can offer therapeutic options for these patients and avoid the risks associated with invasive surgery and general anesthesia.


Radiology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 292 (3) ◽  
pp. 702-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Urman ◽  
Marilyn Moucharite ◽  
Courtney Flynn ◽  
Ejegul Nuryyeva ◽  
Charles E. Ray

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bashayer Hassan Shuaib ◽  
Rahaf Hisham Niazi ◽  
Ahmed Haitham Abduljabbar ◽  
Mohammed Abdulraheem Wazzan

BACKGROUND Radiology now plays a major role to diagnose, monitoring, and management of several diseases; numerous diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures involve exposure to ionizing radiation. Radiology now plays a major role to diagnose, monitoring, and management of several diseases; numerous diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures involve exposure to ionizing radiation. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to discover and compare the awareness level of radiation doses, protection issues, and risks among radiology staff in Jeddah hospitals. METHODS A cross-sectional survey containing 25 questions on personal information and various aspects of radiation exposure doses and risks was designed using an online survey tool and the link was emailed to all radiology staff in eight tertiary hospitals in Jeddah. The authors were excluded from the study. A P-value of < .05 was used to identify statistical significance. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 21. RESULTS Out of 156 participants the majority 151 (96.8%) had poor knowledge score, where the mean scores were 2.4±1.3 for doses knowledge, 2.1±1.1for cancer risks knowledge, 2.3±0.6 for general information, and 6.7±1.9 for the total score. Only 34.6% of the participants were aware of the dosage of a single-view chest x-ray, and 9.0% chose the right answer for the approximate effective dose received by a patient in a two-view. 42.9% were able to know the correct dose of CT abdomen single phase. There is a significant underestimation of cancer risk of CT studies especially for CT abdomen where only 23.7% knew the right risk. A p-value of <0.05 was used to identify statistical significance. No significant difference of knowledge score was detected regarding gender (P =.2) or work position (P=.66). CONCLUSIONS Our survey results show considerable inadequate knowledge in all groups without exception. We recommended a conscientious effort to deliver more solid education and obtain more knowledge in these matters and providing periodic training courses to teach how to minimize the dose of radiation and to avoid risk related. CLINICALTRIAL not applicable


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document