Patient radiation exposure during different kyphoplasty techniques

The scope of this study was to quantify patient radiation exposure during two different techniques of kyphoplasty (KP), which differ by a cement delivery method, in order to assess whether or not one of the two used methods can reduce the patient dose. Twenty patients were examined for this investig...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiation protection dosimetry 2014-01, Vol.158 (2), p.230-234
Hauptverfasser: Panizza, Denis, Barbieri, Massimo, Parisoli, Francesco, Moro, Luca
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 234
container_issue 2
container_start_page 230
container_title Radiation protection dosimetry
container_volume 158
creator Panizza, Denis
Barbieri, Massimo
Parisoli, Francesco
Moro, Luca
description The scope of this study was to quantify patient radiation exposure during two different techniques of kyphoplasty (KP), which differ by a cement delivery method, in order to assess whether or not one of the two used methods can reduce the patient dose. Twenty patients were examined for this investigation. One X-ray fluoroscopy unit was used for localization, navigation and monitoring of cement delivery. The patient biometric data, the setting of the fluoroscope, the exposure time and the kerma-area product (KAP) were monitored in all the procedures for anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LL) fluoroscopic projections in order to assess the range of radiation doses imparted to the patient. Theoretical entrance skin dose (ESD) and effective dose (E) were calculated from intraoperatively measured KAP. An average ET per procedure was 1.5±0.5 min for the manual injection technique (study A) and 1.4±0.4 min for the distance delivery technique (study B) in the AP plane, while 3.2±0.7 and 5.1±0.6 min in the lateral plane, respectively. ESD was estimated as an average of 0.10±0.06 Gy for study A and 0.13±0.13 Gy for study B in the AP or/and 0.59±0.46 and 1.05±0.36 Gy in the lateral view, respectively. The cumulative mean E was 1.9±1.0 mSv procedure(-1) for study A and 3.6±0.9 mSv procedure(-1) for study B. Patient radiation exposure and associated effective dose from KP may be considerable. The technique of distance cement delivery appears to be slower than the manual injection technique and it requires a more protracted fluoroscopic control in the lateral projection, so that this system entails a higher amount of dose to the patient.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/rpd/nct214
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1491055776</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1491055776</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-656d78e95a8ca042ff886e6ec345a49706fedcf1ddc38954d9716ce37f4cd16f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMotlYv_gDZowhr87VJ9qjFLyjoQc8hJhMb3e6uSRbsv3dLq6d5YR7eGR6Ezgm-Jrhm89i7eWszJfwATYnktGQci0M0xYTzUnGKJ-gkpU-MqawrfowmlGM2LukU3b6YHKDNRTQujLFrC_jpuzREKNwQQ_tRuOA9xC3ztelXXd-YlDdFBrtqw_cA6RQdedMkONvPGXq7v3tdPJbL54enxc2ytFTJXIpKOKmgroyyBnPqvVICBFjGK8NriYUHZz1xzjI1vulqSYQFJj23jgjPZuhy19vHbns363VIFprGtNANSRNeE1xVUooRvdqhNnYpRfC6j2Ft4kYTrLfO9OhM75yN8MW-d3hfg_tH_ySxX4Lzaa4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1491055776</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient radiation exposure during different kyphoplasty techniques</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Panizza, Denis ; Barbieri, Massimo ; Parisoli, Francesco ; Moro, Luca</creator><creatorcontrib>Panizza, Denis ; Barbieri, Massimo ; Parisoli, Francesco ; Moro, Luca</creatorcontrib><description>The scope of this study was to quantify patient radiation exposure during two different techniques of kyphoplasty (KP), which differ by a cement delivery method, in order to assess whether or not one of the two used methods can reduce the patient dose. Twenty patients were examined for this investigation. One X-ray fluoroscopy unit was used for localization, navigation and monitoring of cement delivery. The patient biometric data, the setting of the fluoroscope, the exposure time and the kerma-area product (KAP) were monitored in all the procedures for anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LL) fluoroscopic projections in order to assess the range of radiation doses imparted to the patient. Theoretical entrance skin dose (ESD) and effective dose (E) were calculated from intraoperatively measured KAP. An average ET per procedure was 1.5±0.5 min for the manual injection technique (study A) and 1.4±0.4 min for the distance delivery technique (study B) in the AP plane, while 3.2±0.7 and 5.1±0.6 min in the lateral plane, respectively. ESD was estimated as an average of 0.10±0.06 Gy for study A and 0.13±0.13 Gy for study B in the AP or/and 0.59±0.46 and 1.05±0.36 Gy in the lateral view, respectively. The cumulative mean E was 1.9±1.0 mSv procedure(-1) for study A and 3.6±0.9 mSv procedure(-1) for study B. Patient radiation exposure and associated effective dose from KP may be considerable. The technique of distance cement delivery appears to be slower than the manual injection technique and it requires a more protracted fluoroscopic control in the lateral projection, so that this system entails a higher amount of dose to the patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-8420</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1742-3406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nct214</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24030142</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Bone Cements ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Fluoroscopy - methods ; Humans ; Kyphoplasty - adverse effects ; Kyphoplasty - methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiography, Interventional - methods ; Radiometry ; Spinal Fractures - therapy ; X-Rays</subject><ispartof>Radiation protection dosimetry, 2014-01, Vol.158 (2), p.230-234</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-656d78e95a8ca042ff886e6ec345a49706fedcf1ddc38954d9716ce37f4cd16f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-656d78e95a8ca042ff886e6ec345a49706fedcf1ddc38954d9716ce37f4cd16f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030142$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Panizza, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbieri, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parisoli, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moro, Luca</creatorcontrib><title>Patient radiation exposure during different kyphoplasty techniques</title><title>Radiation protection dosimetry</title><addtitle>Radiat Prot Dosimetry</addtitle><description>The scope of this study was to quantify patient radiation exposure during two different techniques of kyphoplasty (KP), which differ by a cement delivery method, in order to assess whether or not one of the two used methods can reduce the patient dose. Twenty patients were examined for this investigation. One X-ray fluoroscopy unit was used for localization, navigation and monitoring of cement delivery. The patient biometric data, the setting of the fluoroscope, the exposure time and the kerma-area product (KAP) were monitored in all the procedures for anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LL) fluoroscopic projections in order to assess the range of radiation doses imparted to the patient. Theoretical entrance skin dose (ESD) and effective dose (E) were calculated from intraoperatively measured KAP. An average ET per procedure was 1.5±0.5 min for the manual injection technique (study A) and 1.4±0.4 min for the distance delivery technique (study B) in the AP plane, while 3.2±0.7 and 5.1±0.6 min in the lateral plane, respectively. ESD was estimated as an average of 0.10±0.06 Gy for study A and 0.13±0.13 Gy for study B in the AP or/and 0.59±0.46 and 1.05±0.36 Gy in the lateral view, respectively. The cumulative mean E was 1.9±1.0 mSv procedure(-1) for study A and 3.6±0.9 mSv procedure(-1) for study B. Patient radiation exposure and associated effective dose from KP may be considerable. The technique of distance cement delivery appears to be slower than the manual injection technique and it requires a more protracted fluoroscopic control in the lateral projection, so that this system entails a higher amount of dose to the patient.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Bone Cements</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kyphoplasty - adverse effects</subject><subject>Kyphoplasty - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiography, Interventional - methods</subject><subject>Radiometry</subject><subject>Spinal Fractures - therapy</subject><subject>X-Rays</subject><issn>0144-8420</issn><issn>1742-3406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMotlYv_gDZowhr87VJ9qjFLyjoQc8hJhMb3e6uSRbsv3dLq6d5YR7eGR6Ezgm-Jrhm89i7eWszJfwATYnktGQci0M0xYTzUnGKJ-gkpU-MqawrfowmlGM2LukU3b6YHKDNRTQujLFrC_jpuzREKNwQQ_tRuOA9xC3ztelXXd-YlDdFBrtqw_cA6RQdedMkONvPGXq7v3tdPJbL54enxc2ytFTJXIpKOKmgroyyBnPqvVICBFjGK8NriYUHZz1xzjI1vulqSYQFJj23jgjPZuhy19vHbns363VIFprGtNANSRNeE1xVUooRvdqhNnYpRfC6j2Ft4kYTrLfO9OhM75yN8MW-d3hfg_tH_ySxX4Lzaa4</recordid><startdate>201401</startdate><enddate>201401</enddate><creator>Panizza, Denis</creator><creator>Barbieri, Massimo</creator><creator>Parisoli, Francesco</creator><creator>Moro, Luca</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201401</creationdate><title>Patient radiation exposure during different kyphoplasty techniques</title><author>Panizza, Denis ; Barbieri, Massimo ; Parisoli, Francesco ; Moro, Luca</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-656d78e95a8ca042ff886e6ec345a49706fedcf1ddc38954d9716ce37f4cd16f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Bone Cements</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kyphoplasty - adverse effects</topic><topic>Kyphoplasty - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiography, Interventional - methods</topic><topic>Radiometry</topic><topic>Spinal Fractures - therapy</topic><topic>X-Rays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Panizza, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbieri, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parisoli, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moro, Luca</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiation protection dosimetry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Panizza, Denis</au><au>Barbieri, Massimo</au><au>Parisoli, Francesco</au><au>Moro, Luca</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient radiation exposure during different kyphoplasty techniques</atitle><jtitle>Radiation protection dosimetry</jtitle><addtitle>Radiat Prot Dosimetry</addtitle><date>2014-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>158</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>230</spage><epage>234</epage><pages>230-234</pages><issn>0144-8420</issn><eissn>1742-3406</eissn><abstract>The scope of this study was to quantify patient radiation exposure during two different techniques of kyphoplasty (KP), which differ by a cement delivery method, in order to assess whether or not one of the two used methods can reduce the patient dose. Twenty patients were examined for this investigation. One X-ray fluoroscopy unit was used for localization, navigation and monitoring of cement delivery. The patient biometric data, the setting of the fluoroscope, the exposure time and the kerma-area product (KAP) were monitored in all the procedures for anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LL) fluoroscopic projections in order to assess the range of radiation doses imparted to the patient. Theoretical entrance skin dose (ESD) and effective dose (E) were calculated from intraoperatively measured KAP. An average ET per procedure was 1.5±0.5 min for the manual injection technique (study A) and 1.4±0.4 min for the distance delivery technique (study B) in the AP plane, while 3.2±0.7 and 5.1±0.6 min in the lateral plane, respectively. ESD was estimated as an average of 0.10±0.06 Gy for study A and 0.13±0.13 Gy for study B in the AP or/and 0.59±0.46 and 1.05±0.36 Gy in the lateral view, respectively. The cumulative mean E was 1.9±1.0 mSv procedure(-1) for study A and 3.6±0.9 mSv procedure(-1) for study B. Patient radiation exposure and associated effective dose from KP may be considerable. The technique of distance cement delivery appears to be slower than the manual injection technique and it requires a more protracted fluoroscopic control in the lateral projection, so that this system entails a higher amount of dose to the patient.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>24030142</pmid><doi>10.1093/rpd/nct214</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0144-8420
ispartof Radiation protection dosimetry, 2014-01, Vol.158 (2), p.230-234
issn 0144-8420
1742-3406
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1491055776
source Oxford University Press Journals; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Bone Cements
Equipment Design
Female
Fluoroscopy - methods
Humans
Kyphoplasty - adverse effects
Kyphoplasty - methods
Male
Middle Aged
Radiation Dosage
Radiography, Interventional - methods
Radiometry
Spinal Fractures - therapy
X-Rays
title Patient radiation exposure during different kyphoplasty techniques
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T18%3A44%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patient%20radiation%20exposure%20during%20different%20kyphoplasty%20techniques&rft.jtitle=Radiation%20protection%20dosimetry&rft.au=Panizza,%20Denis&rft.date=2014-01&rft.volume=158&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=230&rft.epage=234&rft.pages=230-234&rft.issn=0144-8420&rft.eissn=1742-3406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/rpd/nct214&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1491055776%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1491055776&rft_id=info:pmid/24030142&rfr_iscdi=true