The Korean Journal of Pain

The Korean Pain Society (대한통증학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Radiation Exposure of the Hand and Chest during C-arm Fluoroscopy-Guided Procedures

  • Jung, Cheol Hee (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center) ;
  • Ryu, Jae Sung (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center) ;
  • Baek, Seung Woo (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center) ;
  • Oh, Ji Hye (Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Woo, Nam Sik (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Hae Kyoung (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Jae Hun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center)
  • Received : 2012.11.15
  • Accepted : 2012.12.08
  • Published : 2013.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The C-arm fluoroscope is an essential tool for the intervention of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiation exposure experienced by the hand and chest of pain physicians during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Methods: This is a prospective study about radiation exposure to physicians during transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) and medial branch block (MBB). Four pain physicians were involved in this study. Data about effective dose (ED) at each physician's right hand and left side of the chest, exposure time, radiation absorbed dose (RAD), and the distance from the center of the X-ray field to the physician during X-ray scanning were collected. Results: Three hundred and fifteen cases were included for this study. Demographic data showed no significant differences among the physicians in the TFESIs and MBBs. In the TFESI group, there was a significant difference between the ED at the hand and chest in all the physicians. In physician A, B and C, the ED at the chest was more than the ED at the hand. The distance from the center of the X-ray field to physician A was more than that of the other physicians, and for the exposure time, the ED and RAD in physician A was less than that of the other physicians. In the MBB group, there was no difference in the ED at the hand and chest, except for physician D. The distance from the center of the X-ray field to physician A was more than that of the other physicians and the exposure time in physician A was less than that of the other physicians. Conclusions: In conclusion, the distance from the radiation source, position of the hand, experience and technique can correlate with the radiation dose.

Keywords

References

  1. Andreassi MG. The biological effects of diagnostic cardiac imaging on chronically exposed physicians: the importance of being non-ionizing. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2004; 2: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-7120-2-25
  2. Park PE, Park JM, Kang JE, Cho JH, Cho SJ, Kim JH, et al. Radiation safety and education in the applicants of the final test for the expert of pain medicine. Korean J Pain 2012; 25: 16-21. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2012.25.1.16
  3. Pradhan AS. Evolution of dosimetric quantities of International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP): Impact of the forthcoming recommendations. J Med Phys 2007; 32: 89-91. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.35719
  4. Miller DL, Vañó E, Bartal G, Balter S, Dixon R, Padovani R, et al. Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21: 607-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.01.007
  5. Harding LK, Thomson WH. International commission on radiation protection. Nucl Med Commun 1990; 11: 585-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006231-199009000-00001
  6. Cousins C, Sharp C. Medical interventional proceduresreducing the radiation risks. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: 468-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2003.11.014
  7. Mroz TE, Yamashita T, Davros WJ, Lieberman IH. Radiation exposure to the surgeon and the patient during kyphoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31805fe9e1
  8. Theocharopoulos N, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Papadokostakis G, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N. Occupational exposure from common fluoroscopic projections used in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 1698-703. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200309000-00007
  9. Blattert TR, Fill UA, Kunz E, Panzer W, Weckbach A, Regulla DF. Skill dependence of radiation exposure for the orthopaedic surgeon during interlocking nailing of long-bone shaft fractures: a clinical study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004; 124: 659-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0743-9
  10. Bahari S, Morris S, Broe D, Taylor C, Lenehan B, McElwain J. Radiation exposure of the hands and thyroid gland during percutaneous wiring of wrist and hand procedures. Acta Orthop Belg 2006; 72: 194-8.
  11. Arnstein PM, Richards AM, Putney R. The risk from radiation exposure during operative X-ray screening in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Br 1994; 19: 393-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-7681(94)90097-3
  12. Siegel JA, Marcus CS, Sparks RB. Calculating the absorbed dose from radioactive patients: the line-source versus point-source model. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1241-4.
  13. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2011, pp 837-902.
  14. Singer G. Occupational radiation exposure to the surgeon. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005; 13: 69-76. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200501000-00009
  15. Cho JH, Kim JY, Kang JE, Park PE, Kim JH, Lim JA, et al. A study to compare the radiation absorbed dose of the C-arm fluoroscopic modes. Korean J Pain 2011; 24: 199-204. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2011.24.4.199
  16. Kallmes DF, O E, Roy SS, Piccolo RG, Marx WF, Lee JK, et al. Radiation dose to the operator during vertebroplasty: prospective comparison of the use of 1-cc syringes versus an injection device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 1257-60.
  17. Kruger R, Faciszewski T. Radiation dose reduction to medical staff during vertebroplasty: a review of techniques and methods to mitigate occupational dose. Spine 2003; 28: 1608-13.

Cited by

  1. Are Doctors Exposed to Radiation Even When Wearing Protectors during Fluoroscopic Procedures? vol.26, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2013.26.2.207
  2. Replay to the Letter: Are Doctors Exposed to Radiation Even When Wearing Protectors during Fluoroscopic Procedures? vol.26, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2013.26.2.208
  3. Radiation Safety for Pain Physicians: Technique or Equipment vol.27, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2014.27.2.101
  4. How Effective Are Radiation Reducing Gloves in C-arm Fluoroscopy-guided Pain Interventions? vol.27, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2014.27.2.145
  5. The Radiation Exposure of Radiographer Related to the Location in C-arm Fluoroscopy-guided Pain Interventions vol.27, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2014.27.2.162
  6. Mini C-arm: faster, cheaper, safer? vol.87, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13842
  7. Three principles for radiation safety: time, distance, and shielding vol.31, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2018.31.3.145
  8. Fluoroscopy-guided versus CT-guided Lumbar Steroid Injections: Comparison of Radiation Exposure and Outcomes vol.290, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181224
  9. Review of the Clinical Use of Fluoroscopy in Hand Surgery vol.20, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1142/s021881041530003x