Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Flat Panel Detector c-Arms Are Associated with Dramatically Reduced Radiation Exposure During Ureteroscopy and Produce Superior Images.
Lee, Jason J; Venna, Alyssia M; McCarthy, Ian; Cilento, Bartley G; Demers, Michael G; MacDougall, Robert D; Beaulieu, Danielle; Nosrati, Reyhaneh; Nelson, Caleb P; Kurtz, Michael P.
Afiliação
  • Lee JJ; Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Venna AM; Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • McCarthy I; Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Cilento BG; Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Demers MG; Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • MacDougall RD; Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Beaulieu D; Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Nosrati R; Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Nelson CP; Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Kurtz MP; Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Endourol ; 35(6): 789-794, 2021 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33528298
ABSTRACT

Background:

We wished to determine whether newly available flat panel detector (FPD) c-arms were (1) associated with lower radiation dose during ureteroscopy (URS) than conventional image intensifier (CII) c-arms and (2) to compare fluoroscopic image quality between the units. Materials and

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients undergoing URS at a pediatric hospital, with c-arms assigned by availability in the operating room. We performed dosimetry experiments using the same c-arms on standard phantoms.

Results:

Patient and case characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups of patients. The median dose in the FPD group was less than a quarter of the dose in the CII group, 0.48 [0.42, 0.97] mGy vs 2.2 [1.1, 3.8] mGy, p < 0.0001. The FPD dose remained at less than one-third of the CII dose accounting for any difference in fluoroscopy time, and remained significant in a multivariate model including fluoroscopy time and patient weight (ß = 2.4, p = 0.007). Phantom studies showed higher image quality for FPDs at all simulated patient sizes, even at lower radiation doses.

Conclusions:

This is the first report comparing radiation dose from c-arms of image intensifiers and FPDs in adults or children. Use of an FPD during URS was associated with a substantially decreased absorbed dose for patients while simultaneously improving image quality.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ureteroscopia / Exposição à Radiação Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Child / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Endourol Assunto da revista: UROLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ureteroscopia / Exposição à Radiação Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Child / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Endourol Assunto da revista: UROLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos