Low-dose pulsed vs standard pulsed fluoroscopy during ERCP to reduce radiation without change in image quality: Prospective randomized study

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) poses the risk of radiation exposure (RE) to patients and staff and increases the risk of adverse biological effects such as cataracts, sterility, and cancer. Newer fluoroscopy equipment (C-Arm) provides options to limit radiation in the form of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Endoscopy International Open 2024-04, Vol.12 (4), p.E554-E560
Hauptverfasser: Ali, Osman, Kesar, Varun, Alizadeh, Madeline, Kalachi, Kourosh, Twery, Benjamin, Wellnitz, Nicholas, Kim, Raymond Eunho, Goldberg, Eric, Uradomo, Lance T, Darwin, Peter E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) poses the risk of radiation exposure (RE) to patients and staff and increases the risk of adverse biological effects such as cataracts, sterility, and cancer. Newer fluoroscopy equipment (C-Arm) provides options to limit radiation in the form of lower radiation dose and frame rate or time-limited "pulsed" settings. However, the impact of lower settings on image quality has not been assessed, and no standard protocol exists for fluoroscopy settings used during ERCP. This was a single-center, double-blind, prospective randomized study of consecutive adult patients undergoing standard-of-care ERCP at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were randomized into two groups: 1) standard-dose pulsed and 2) low-dose pulsed. Pulsed mode (8 fps) was defined as x-ray exposure either in the manufacturer standard-dose or low-dose settings limited to 3 seconds each time the foot-operated switch was depressed. Seventy-eight patients undergoing ERCP were enrolled and randomized. No difference in age, gender, or body mass index was found between the two groups. No significant difference in image quality was found between standard-dose and low-dose fluoroscopy = 0.925). The low-dose group was exposed to significantly less radiation when compared with standard-dose < 0.05). Fluoroscopy time (minutes) was similar in both groups (2.0 vs 1.9), further suggesting that group assignment had no impact on image quality or procedure time. Low-dose pulsed fluoroscopy is a reliable method that substantially reduces radiation without compromising image quality or affecting procedure or fluoroscopy times. This underscores the need for standardization in ERCP fluoroscopy settings to limit radiation exposure.
ISSN:2364-3722
2196-9736
DOI:10.1055/a-2284-8656