Cargando…

Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the amount of radiation exposure from intraoperative imaging during two-level and four-level lumbar fusions. METHODS: Five imaging systems were studied: multidetector CT (MDCT) scanner (CT A); two mobile CT units (CT B and CT C); a C-arm (D); and fl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moore, Bria, Womack, K. Roland, Nguyen, Giao, Foster, Norah, Richardson, William, Yoshizumi, Terry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6145549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30280142
http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-18-00030
_version_ 1783356277631483904
author Moore, Bria
Womack, K. Roland
Nguyen, Giao
Foster, Norah
Richardson, William
Yoshizumi, Terry
author_facet Moore, Bria
Womack, K. Roland
Nguyen, Giao
Foster, Norah
Richardson, William
Yoshizumi, Terry
author_sort Moore, Bria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the amount of radiation exposure from intraoperative imaging during two-level and four-level lumbar fusions. METHODS: Five imaging systems were studied: multidetector CT (MDCT) scanner (CT A); two mobile CT units (CT B and CT C); a C-arm (D); and fluoroscopy (E). Metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters measured doses at 25 organ locations using an anthropomorphic phantom. A fat-equivalent phantom was used to simulate an obese body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: The effective dose (ED) for C-arm D was estimated using commercial software. The ED for others was computed from the measured mean organ doses. EDs for a normal BMI patient, receiving a four-level fusion, are as follows: CT A (12.00 ± 0.30 mSv), CT B (5.90 ± 0.25 mSv), CT C (2.35 ± 0.44 mSv), C-arm D (0.44 mSv), and fluoroscopy E (0.30 ± 0.3 mSv). The rankings are consistent across all three BMI values except CT C and fluoroscopy E, which peaked in the overweight size because of system limitations. The other machines' ED trended with patient BMI. CONCLUSION: The dose reduction protocols were confirmed according to the manufacturer's specifications. The results of this study emphasize the need for the appropriate selection of the imaging system, especially because the type of device could have a substantial effect on patient radiation risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6145549
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61455492018-10-02 Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery Moore, Bria Womack, K. Roland Nguyen, Giao Foster, Norah Richardson, William Yoshizumi, Terry J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Research Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the amount of radiation exposure from intraoperative imaging during two-level and four-level lumbar fusions. METHODS: Five imaging systems were studied: multidetector CT (MDCT) scanner (CT A); two mobile CT units (CT B and CT C); a C-arm (D); and fluoroscopy (E). Metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters measured doses at 25 organ locations using an anthropomorphic phantom. A fat-equivalent phantom was used to simulate an obese body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: The effective dose (ED) for C-arm D was estimated using commercial software. The ED for others was computed from the measured mean organ doses. EDs for a normal BMI patient, receiving a four-level fusion, are as follows: CT A (12.00 ± 0.30 mSv), CT B (5.90 ± 0.25 mSv), CT C (2.35 ± 0.44 mSv), C-arm D (0.44 mSv), and fluoroscopy E (0.30 ± 0.3 mSv). The rankings are consistent across all three BMI values except CT C and fluoroscopy E, which peaked in the overweight size because of system limitations. The other machines' ED trended with patient BMI. CONCLUSION: The dose reduction protocols were confirmed according to the manufacturer's specifications. The results of this study emphasize the need for the appropriate selection of the imaging system, especially because the type of device could have a substantial effect on patient radiation risk. Wolters Kluwer 2018-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6145549/ /pubmed/30280142 http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-18-00030 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moore, Bria
Womack, K. Roland
Nguyen, Giao
Foster, Norah
Richardson, William
Yoshizumi, Terry
Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery
title Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery
title_full Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery
title_fullStr Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery
title_full_unstemmed Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery
title_short Patient Dose Comparison for Intraoperative Imaging Devices Used in Orthopaedic Lumbar Spinal Surgery
title_sort patient dose comparison for intraoperative imaging devices used in orthopaedic lumbar spinal surgery
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6145549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30280142
http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-18-00030
work_keys_str_mv AT moorebria patientdosecomparisonforintraoperativeimagingdevicesusedinorthopaediclumbarspinalsurgery
AT womackkroland patientdosecomparisonforintraoperativeimagingdevicesusedinorthopaediclumbarspinalsurgery
AT nguyengiao patientdosecomparisonforintraoperativeimagingdevicesusedinorthopaediclumbarspinalsurgery
AT fosternorah patientdosecomparisonforintraoperativeimagingdevicesusedinorthopaediclumbarspinalsurgery
AT richardsonwilliam patientdosecomparisonforintraoperativeimagingdevicesusedinorthopaediclumbarspinalsurgery
AT yoshizumiterry patientdosecomparisonforintraoperativeimagingdevicesusedinorthopaediclumbarspinalsurgery