Radiation exposure of patients during mini C-arm use: an audit in 2032 procedures

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 734-737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R. McCann ◽  
Philippa A. Rust ◽  
Katie Brown ◽  
David Lawrie
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Steroid Injection ◽  
Anatomical Location ◽  
Median Dose ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
The Third ◽  
Area Product

This study aimed to audit large quantities of mini C-arm data used in hand and wrist surgery and to analyse what effect the type and anatomical location of procedures had on screening time and dose area product. Of a total of 2032 procedures, the median screening time was 11 seconds and median dose area product was 0.75 cGycm2. The third quartile value for screening time was 23 seconds and dose area product was 1.62 cGycm2. The median screening time for closed procedures was 7 seconds and the dose area product was 0.57 cGycm2. The median screening time for open surgery was 23 seconds with a median dose area product of 1.45 cGycm2. The data for steroid injection procedures were similar to those of the closed procedures, with a median screening time of 7 seconds and dose area product of 0.45 cGycm2. We found no significant differences in the screening time or dose area product between procedures on the wrist and forearm compared with the hand and digits. Level of evidence: III

scholarly journals Establishing local diagnostic reference levels for common orthopaedic procedures using the mini C-arm fluoroscope

2021 ◽  
Vol 94 (1117) ◽  
pp. 20190878
Author(s):  
Anna Kropelnicki ◽  
Rosemary Eaton ◽  
Alexandra Adamczyk ◽  
Jacqueline Waterman ◽  
Pegah Mohaghegh
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Diagnostic Reference Levels ◽  
Reference Levels ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
The Third ◽  
Retrospective Audit ◽  
Area Product

Objective: Mini C-arm fluoroscopes are widely used by orthopaedic surgeons for intraoperative image guidance without the need for radiographers. This puts the responsibility for radiation exposure firmly with the operating surgeon. In order to maintain safe and best practice under U.K. Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations, one must limit radiation exposure and audit performance using national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). In the case of the mini C-arm, there are no national DRLs. IR(ME)R, therefore, require the establishment of local DRLs by each hospital to act as an alternative guideline for safe radiation use. The aim of our audit was to establish local DRLs based on our experience operating with the use of the mini C-arm over the last 7 years. Methods: This retrospective audit evaluates the end dose–area product (DAP) recorded for common trauma and orthopaedic procedures using the mini C-arm in a busy district general hospital. We present the quartile data and have set the cut-off point as the third quartile for formulating the local DRLs, consistent with the methodology for the conventional fluoroscope. Results: For our data set (n = 1664), the third quartile DAP values were lowest for surgeries to the forearm (5.38 cGycm2), hand (7.62 cGycm2), and foot/ankle (8.56 cGycm2), and highest for wrist (10.64 cGycm2) and elbow (14.61 cGycm2) procedures. Advances in knowledge: To our knowledge, this is the largest data set used to establish local DRLs. Other centres may find our guidelines useful whilst they establish their own local DRLs.

Abstract 14656: Fusion of Fluoroscopy and Echocardiography During the Mitraclip® Procedure Reduces Time to Transseptal Puncture and Radiation Exposure

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Slaven ◽  
Joseph Burke ◽  
Jacob Hammers ◽  
Robert A Quaife ◽  
Pei-ni Jone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Transseptal Puncture ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
The Third ◽  
Air Kerma ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Measured Time ◽  
Radiation Equipment ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Reduced Time

Introduction: Transseptal puncture (TSP) is an essential step in percutaneous structural heart interventions, such as the MitraClip® procedure. Radiation exposure is a hazard for Interventional Cardiologists, Echocardiographers, and patients. Advancements in shielding and radiation equipment have reduced this exposure, but further reduction is desired. EchoNav® (Philips) fuses fluoroscopy and echocardiography resulting in a single multimodal image display. Prior studies demonstrated reduced time to TSP with use of EchoNav® but failed to show significant reduction in radiation. We hypothesized that increased experience using EchoNav® would further decrease TSP time and radiation dose. Methods: Single center, retrospective analysis evaluated 202 patients undergoing MitraClip® procedure pre and post-EchoNav® from 6/2010 to 12/2019: 8 pre and 194 post. We measured time to TSP and radiation exposure by Air Kerma and dose area product (DAP). For the post-EchoNav® cases, we evaluated these variables by 2-year time periods to examine change over time. Results: Comparing pre and post-EchoNav ® procedures, time to TSP was non-significantly reduced overall (40.00±14.95 to 33.63±15.92, p=0.23). However, post-EchoNav ® had a decreasing trend (48.00±28.39, 43.47±15.86, 28.45±11.94, 27.55±10.64; R 2 =0.89, p =0.009) that was significantly less than pre-EchoNav ® by the third time period (40.00±14.95 vs 28.45±11.94, p=0.05) and remained less in the fourth (40.00±14.95 vs 27.55±10.64, p=0.03). Radiation was reduced post-EchoNav ® by both DAP (264.52±150.03 to 109.00±97.68) (p=0.02) and Air Kerma (1472.92±883.50 to 582.49±485.28) (p=0.05). Significant radiation reduction occurred by the third time period for Air Kerma (1472.92±883.50 vs 494.12±413,79, p=0.03) and second time period for DAP (264.52±150.03 to 127.51±110.35, p=0.03). Conclusion: These results suggest that use of EchoNav® has a learning curve, but ultimately reduces time to TSP and radiation.

scholarly journals Fusion Imaging Significantly Reduces Contrast and Radiation Exposure During Standard EVAR

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Susanne Anton ◽  
J. Barkhausen ◽  
M. Wiedner ◽  
E. Stahlberg ◽  
Janpeter Goltz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Fusion Imaging ◽  
Standard Group ◽  
Digital Subtraction ◽  
Hypogastric Artery ◽  
Median Dose ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Contrast Volume ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Few Data

Background: Standard endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is frequently performed with few data regarding utilization of 2D-3D fusion imaging (FI). Purpose: To evaluate a) feasibility and safety of 2D-3D FI to guide limb deployment during EVAR and b) efficacy of this technique compared to standard use of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for guidance. Materials and Methods: Iliac limb deployment by guidance of 2D-3D FI (FUSION group, n=22 limbs) during EVAR was compared to (STANDARD group, n=23 limbs). Retrospectively, we analyzed feasibility (success-rate) and safety (patency of hypogastric artery; type Ib/III endoleak) of FI for limb deployment (FUSION group). Total contrast (ml) and median dose area product (mGy*cm2) per group to visualize the iliac bifurcation were compared. Results: In the FUSION group, limb deployment was performed in 19/22 limbs (86.4%) and all hypogastric arteries were patent at the end of the procedure. Median volumes of contrast per bifurcation were 13.0 ml (RANGE 13–13ml) in the STANDARD and 2.2ml (RANGE 0–13ml) in the FUSION group (p=0.002); median dose area products per bifurcation were 11951mGy*cm2 and 2593.1mGy*cm2 (p=0.001), respectively. Conclusion: Fusion imaging for guidance of limb deployment during standard EVAR is safe and feasible in the majority of procedures and can significantly reduce contrast volume and radiation exposure even if compared with optimal preparation by predicting optimal C-arm positions. Therefore, FI should be used whenever possible

Noninvasive patient tracker mask for spinal 3D navigation: does the required large-volume 3D scan involve a considerably increased radiation exposure?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 838-844
Author(s):  
Jan-Helge Klingler ◽  
Ulrich Hubbe ◽  
Christoph Scholz ◽  
Florian Volz ◽  
Marc Hohenhaus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Image Data ◽  
3D Image ◽  
Flat Panel ◽  
3D Navigation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Flat Panel Detector ◽  
3D Scan ◽  
Area Product

OBJECTIVEIntraoperative 3D imaging and navigation is increasingly used for minimally invasive spine surgery. A novel, noninvasive patient tracker that is adhered as a mask on the skin for 3D navigation necessitates a larger intraoperative 3D image set for appropriate referencing. This enlarged 3D image data set can be acquired by a state-of-the-art 3D C-arm device that is equipped with a large flat-panel detector. However, the presumably associated higher radiation exposure to the patient has essentially not yet been investigated and is therefore the objective of this study.METHODSPatients were retrospectively included if a thoracolumbar 3D scan was performed intraoperatively between 2016 and 2019 using a 3D C-arm with a large 30 × 30–cm flat-panel detector (3D scan volume 4096 cm3) or a 3D C-arm with a smaller 20 × 20–cm flat-panel detector (3D scan volume 2097 cm3), and the dose area product was available for the 3D scan. Additionally, the fluoroscopy time and the number of fluoroscopic images per 3D scan, as well as the BMI of the patients, were recorded.RESULTSThe authors compared 62 intraoperative thoracolumbar 3D scans using the 3D C-arm with a large flat-panel detector and 12 3D scans using the 3D C-arm with a small flat-panel detector. Overall, the 3D C-arm with a large flat-panel detector required more fluoroscopic images per scan (mean 389.0 ± 8.4 vs 117.0 ± 4.6, p < 0.0001), leading to a significantly higher dose area product (mean 1028.6 ± 767.9 vs 457.1 ± 118.9 cGy × cm2, p = 0.0044).CONCLUSIONSThe novel, noninvasive patient tracker mask facilitates intraoperative 3D navigation while eliminating the need for an additional skin incision with detachment of the autochthonous muscles. However, the use of this patient tracker mask requires a larger intraoperative 3D image data set for accurate registration, resulting in a 2.25 times higher radiation exposure to the patient. The use of the patient tracker mask should thus be based on an individual decision, especially taking into considering the radiation exposure and extent of instrumentation.

scholarly journals Differences in Radiation Exposure of CT-Guided Percutaneous Manual and Powered Drill Bone Biopsy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Zensen ◽  
Sumitha Selvaretnam ◽  
Marcel Opitz ◽  
Denise Bos ◽  
Johannes Haubold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Lumbar Vertebrae ◽  
Bone Lesions ◽  
Anatomical Location ◽  
Thoracic Vertebrae ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Ct Guided ◽  
Bone Biopsies

Abstract Purpose Apart from the commonly applied manual needle biopsy, CT-guided percutaneous biopsies of bone lesions can be performed with battery-powered drill biopsy systems. Due to assumably different radiation doses and procedural durations, the aim of this study is to examine radiation exposure and establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) of CT-guided bone biopsies of different anatomical regions. Methods In this retrospective study, dose data of 187 patients who underwent CT-guided bone biopsy with a manual or powered drill biopsy system performed at one of three different multi-slice CT were analyzed. Between January 2012 and November 2019, a total of 27 femur (A), 74 ilium (B), 27 sacrum (C), 28 thoracic vertebrae (D) and 31 lumbar vertebrae (E) biopsies were included. Radiation exposure was reported for volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose–length product (DLP). Results CTDIvol and DLP of manual versus powered drill biopsy were (median, IQR): A: 56.9(41.4–128.5)/66.7(37.6–76.2)mGy, 410(203–683)/303(128–403)mGy·cm, B: 83.5(62.1–128.5)/59.4(46.2–79.8)mGy, 489(322–472)/400(329–695)mGy·cm, C: 97.5(71.6–149.2)/63.1(49.1–83.7)mGy, 627(496–740)/404(316–515)mGy·cm, D: 67.0(40.3–86.6)/39.7(29.9–89.0)mGy, 392(267–596)/207(166–402)mGy·cm and E: 100.1(66.5–162.6)/62.5(48.0–90.0)mGy, 521(385–619)/315(240–452)mGy·cm. Radiation exposure with powered drill was significantly lower for ilium and sacrum, while procedural duration was not increased for any anatomical location. Local DRLs could be depicted as follows (CTDIvol/DLP): A: 91 mGy/522 mGy·cm, B: 90 mGy/530 mGy·cm, C: 116 mGy/740 mGy·cm, D: 87 mGy/578 mGy·cm and E: 115 mGy/546 mGy·cm. The diagnostic yield was 82.4% for manual and 89.4% for powered drill biopsies. Conclusion Use of powered drill bone biopsy systems for CT-guided percutaneous bone biopsies can significantly reduce the radiation burden compared to manual biopsy for specific anatomical locations such as ilium and sacrum and does not increase radiation dose or procedural duration for any of the investigated locations. Level of Evidence Level 3.

Estimation of Radiation Exposure in the Pediatric Cath Lab in Ain Shams University; Cross-Sectional Observational Study

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abdelrazik ◽  
Youssef Amin ◽  
Alaa Roushdy ◽  
Maiy El Sayed
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Dosage ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Heart Catheterization ◽  
Radiation Doses ◽  
Device Closure ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Hospital Pediatric

Abstract Aim and objectives The aim of the study is to assess the average radiation doses recorded per procedure in Ain Shams University Hospital pediatric cath lab to set benchmarks of radiation exposure in our institute. Patients and Methods The study included 198 patients who presented to Ain Shams cardiac pediatric cath lab who undergone interventional (BPV, BAV, ASD device closure, VSD device closure, PDA coil/device closure, Coarctation Stent/balloon) and diagnostic (Hemodynamics study, Diagnostic cath) heart catheterization. Radiation doses were measured without any interference with the operator’s preferences. Results Radiation dosages were measured in total AirKerma, Dose area product (DAP), and fluoroscopy time to set the benchmarks for radiation exposure in our institute per procedure. VSD device closure showed the highest radiation exposure followed by Coarctation stenting. Lowest radiation dosage was in PDA coil closure followed by ASD device closure then BPV. Conclusion Benchmarks for radiation exposure per procedure in pediatric cath lab in our institute were set and compared to each other.

scholarly journals Radiation exposure of adrenal vein sampling: a German Multicenter Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 179 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
C T Fuss ◽  
M Treitl ◽  
N Rayes ◽  
P Podrabsky ◽  
W K Fenske ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Adrenal Vein ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Adrenal Vein Sampling ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Sampling Locations ◽  
Subtype Differentiation ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Design And Methods

Objective Adrenal vein sampling (AVS) represents the current diagnostic standard for subtype differentiation in primary aldosteronism (PA). However, AVS has its drawbacks. It is invasive, expensive, requires an experienced interventional radiologist and comes with radiation exposure. However, exact radiation exposure of patients undergoing AVS has never been examined. Design and methods We retrospectively analyzed radiation exposure of 656 AVS performed between 1999 and 2017 at four university hospitals. The primary outcomes were dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time (FT). Consecutively the effective dose (ED) was approximately calculated. Results Median DAP was found to be 32.5 Gy*cm2 (0.3–3181) and FT 18 min (0.3–184). The calculated ED was 6.4 mSv (0.1–636). Remarkably, values between participating centers highly varied: Median DAP ranged from 16 to 147 Gy*cm2, FT from 16 to 27 min, and ED from 3.2 to 29 mSv. As main reason for this variation, differences regarding AVS protocols between centers could be identified, such as number of sampling locations, frames per second and the use of digital subtraction angiographies. Conclusion This first systematic assessment of radiation exposure in AVS not only shows fairly high values for patients, but also states notable differences among the centers. Thus, we not only recommend taking into account the risk of radiation exposure, when referring patients to undergo AVS, but also to establish improved standard operating procedures to prevent unnecessary radiation exposure.

scholarly journals Quantification of radiation exposure in the operating theatre during management of common fractures of the upper extremity in children

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (7) ◽  
pp. 483-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Maempel ◽  
OD Stone ◽  
AW Murray
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Supracondylar Fracture ◽  
Paediatric Hospital ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Flexible Nailing ◽  
Limb Trauma ◽  
Manipulation Under Anaesthesia ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Area Product

Introduction Surgical procedures to manage trauma to the wrist, forearm and elbow in children are very common. Image intensifiers are used routinely, yet studies/guidelines that quantify expected radiation exposure in such procedures are lacking. Methods Information on demographics, injury type, surgeon grade and dose area product (DAP) of radiation exposure per procedure was collected prospectively for 248 patients undergoing manipulation/fixation of injuries to the elbow, forearm or wrist at a paediatric hospital over 1 year. Results DAP exposure (in cGycm2) differed significantly across different procedures (p<0.001): wrist manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA; median, 0.39), wrist k-wiring (1.01), forearm MUA (0.50), flexible nailing of the forearm (2.67), supracondylar fracture MUA and k-wiring (2.23) and open reduction and internal fixation of the lateral humeral condyle (0.96). Fixation of a Gartland grade-3 supracondylar fracture (2.94cGycm2) was associated with higher exposure than grade-2 fixation (1.95cGycm2) (p=0.048). Fractures of the wrist or forearm necessitating metalwork fixation resulted in higher exposure than those requiring manipulation only (both p<0.001). For procedures undertaken by trainees, trainee seniority (between year-5 and year-8 and clinical fellow, p≥0.24) did not affect the DAP significantly. Conclusions The spectrum of radiation exposures for common procedures utilised in the management of paediatric upper limb trauma were quantified. These findings will be useful to surgeons auditing their practice and quantifying radiation-associated risks to patients. Our data may serve as a basis for implementing protocols designed to improve patient safety.

A prospective case control comparison of the ZeroGravity system versus a standard lead apron as radiation protection strategy in neuroendovascular procedures

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1052-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo C Haussen ◽  
Imramsjah Martijn John Van Der Bom ◽  
Raul G Nogueira
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Protection System ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Lead Apron ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Primary Operator ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Peak Skin Dose

Background and purposeWe aimed to compare the performance of the ZeroGravity (ZG) system (radiation protection system composed by a suspended lead suit) against the use of standard protection (lead apron (LA), thyroid shield, lead eyeglasses, table skirts, and ceiling suspended shield) in neuroangiography procedures.Materials and methodsRadiation exposure data were prospectively collected in consecutive neuroendovascular procedures between December 2014 and February 2015. Operator No 1 was assigned to the use of an LA (plus lead glasses, thyroid shield, and a 1 mm hanging shield at the groin) while operator No 2 utilized the ZG system. Dosimeters were used to measure peak skin dose for the head, thyroid, and left foot.ResultsThe two operators performed a total of 122 procedures during the study period. The ZG operator was more commonly the primary operator compared with the LA operator (85% vs 71%; p=0.04). The mean anterior-posterior (AP), lateral, and cumulative dose area product (DAP) radiation exposure as well as the mean fluoroscopy time were not statistically different between the operators’ cases. The peak skin dose to the head of the operator with LA was 2.1 times higher (3380 vs 1600 μSv), while the thyroid was 13.9 (4460 vs 320 μSv), the mediastinum infinitely (520 vs 0 μSv), and the foot 3.3 times higher (4870 vs 1470 μSv) compared with the ZG operator, leading to an overall accumulated dose 4 times higher. The ratio of cumulative operator received dose/total cumulative DAP was 2.5 higher on the LA operator.ConclusionsThe ZG radiation protection system leads to substantially lower radiation exposure to the operator in neurointerventional procedures. However, substantial exposure may still occur at the level of the lens and thyroid to justify additional protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document