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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |