These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Radiation doses for endovascular aortic repairs performed on mobile and fixed C-arm fluoroscopes and procedure phase-specific radiation distribution.
    Author: Schaefers JF, Wunderle K, Usai MV, Torsello GF, Panuccio G.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2018 Dec; 68(6):1889-1896. PubMed ID: 30473030.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze radiation risk to patients during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using mobile C-arm (MA) or fixed C-arm (FA) fluoroscopes and to describe the dose distribution during the different phases of the procedure. METHODS: Patients treated with EVAR using a single stent graft system between November 2009 and June 2016 were included in this study. The patients were divided into one of two groups (MA or FA) according to the type of C-arm used in the procedure. Data regarding patients' demographics and the total amount of contrast agent (CA) used, dose-area product, and fluoroscopy time for the procedures were prospectively recorded. Based on the dose report from the FA system, five standard and two optional phases of the procedure were identified to determine the dose distribution. RESULTS: Overall, 160 patients were included (mean age, 73.30 ± 8.97 years; 146 men); of these, 107 were treated with an MA system and 53 were treated with an FA system. The mean amounts of CA used were 108.55 ± 42.28 mL in the MA group and 85.37 ± 38.79 mL in the FA group (P = .0014). The mean total dose-area product values were 49.93 ± 38.06 Gy·cm2 in the MA group and 168.34 ± 146.92 Gy·cm2 in the FA group (P < .0001). There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time between the groups. Per-phase analysis demonstrated that identification of the proximal landing zone and main body deployment required the most radiation, accounting for 24% of the total radiation dose. Overall, 47.6% of the exposure was due to digital subtraction angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an FA system can significantly reduce the amount of CA needed but may also lead to higher radiation doses in EVAR procedures. Dose monitoring remains crucial for the safety of both patients and operators. A detailed analysis of dose distribution is possible with modern systems, which may improve the quality of monitoring in the future.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]