Hysterosalpingography with use of mobile C-arm fluoroscopy

Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside the Imaging Department

“…As almost 75% of the total dose in hysterosalpingography is due to radiography and only 25% is due to fluoroscopy (Fernández et al, 1996), a significant dose reduction could be achieved by using stored digital images without further patient exposure. The use of C-arm fluoroscopic imaging systems with pulsed fluoroscopy and last-image-hold capability is desirable (Phillips et al, 2010).…”

A Study of the Cost, Accuracy, and Benefits of 3-Dimensional Sonography Compared With Hysterosalpingography in Women With Uterine Abnormalities

“…Most commonly the ovarian dose is less than 6 mGy, 18 whereas modern C-arms (similar to the one we used) allow for a shorter fluoroscopy time and decreased radiation exposure to 2.6 mGy for normal hysterosalpingographic results to 6.9 mGy for abnormal results. 19 In conclusion, these results show 3D sonography as a very promising and cost-effective tool, which may eliminate the need for expensive imaging modalities or diagnostic surgery in the diagnosis of uterine anomalies.…”

“…Hysterosalpingography exposes patients to radiation, and the extent of the exposure is dependent on the equipment, duration of fluoroscopy, number of films, and size of the patient. Most commonly the ovarian dose is less than 6 mGy, 18 whereas modern C‐arms(similar to the one we used) allow for a shorter fluoroscopy time and decreased radiation exposure to 2.6 mGy for normal hysterosalpingographic results to 6.9 mGy for abnormal results 19 …”

Estimation of effective dose during hystrosalpingography procedures in certain hospitals in Sudan

“…Reduction of the fluoroscopy time and radiographic images, use of optimum exposure factor, well designed protocol, use of additional filtration and digital radiography systems and the number of images reduced the radiation doses up to 70% compared with other studies (Sulieman et al, 2008). Philips et al reported that the utilization of C-arm unit with pulsed fluoroscopy and last-image-hold capability can reduce the patient doses to a significant value (Phillips et al, 2010). The use of high tube voltage (kVp) technique reduced the patient doses up to 5% without compromising the diagnostic findings (Abdullah and Rassiah, 2001).…”

“…The partial exposure of patients result in a heterogeneous dose distribution; therefore the organ dose and effective dose values are more appropriate descriptors of patient dose and related risks. In the literature few studies were published regarding the radiation doses received by the patients (Sulieman et al, 2008;Phillips et al, 2010;Plećaš et al, 2010;Gyekye et al, 2012;Canevaro et al, 2008;Abdullah and Rassiah 2001;Gregan et al, 1998;Yousef et al, 2015;Okeji et al, 2011). These studies show broad differences in terms of dose, fluoroscopic time, number of radiographic images, equipment and inter-examiners variability.…”