Management of Patient Skin Dose in Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

“…This has long been recognized by the SIR, which first incorporated educational workshops on radiation safety and exposure as part of their annual scientific meeting in 1992. Other prominent efforts by the SIR included the Radiation Safety Position statement released in 2003 (2), publication of studies related to skin dose in fluoroscopy guided procedures (12), as well as guidelines for patient radiation dose management (13).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation dose reduction: comparative assessment of publication volume between interventional and diagnostic radiology

Hansmann

Henzler

Gaba³

et al. 2017

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O ver the past decade there has been an increase in scrutiny pertaining to radiation dose associated with medical procedures from both professional societies and the lay press. In 2006, a total of 4 million interventional procedures performed in the United States accounted for approximately 14% of the collective radiation dose from radiological procedures (1). In the same year, an estimated 67 million CT scans performed in the United States accounted for approximately 49% of the collective radiation dose from radiological procedures (1). Together, interventional radiology procedures and CT scans accounted for approximately 71 million examinations. In contrast, approximately 293 million diagnostic radiographic and fluoroscopic studies were performed in the United States in 2006 (1), but only accounted for approximately 11% of collective dose. Due to the disproportionate amount of ionizing radiation contributed by both interventional procedures and computed tomography examinations, dose reduction in these two modalities has become a particular focus of attention for professional societies and providers alike (2, 3).Technical advances coupled with the increased interest in reducing radiation dose from medical procedures have resulted in a steady increase in the number of contributions to the radiological literature pertaining to radiation dose reduction over the past decade. Scientific contributions and educational sessions focusing exclusively on dose reduction have become fixtures at national and international radiology meetings. The aim of the current study is to quantify this increased interest and awareness by performing a systematic analysis of I N T E R V E N T I O N A L R A D I O LO G Y O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E PURPOSEWe aimed to quantify and compare awareness regarding radiation dose reduction within the interventional radiology and diagnostic radiology communities. METHODSAbstracts accepted to the annual meetings of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), and the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) between 2005 and 2015 were analyzed using the search terms "interventional/computed tomography" and "radiation dose/radiation dose reduction. " A PubMed query using the above-mentioned search terms for the years of 2005-2015 was performed. RESULTSBetween 2005 and 2015, a total of 14 520 abstracts (mean, 660±297 abstracts) and 80 614 abstracts (mean, 3664±1025 abstracts) were presented at interventional and diagnostic radiology meetings, respectively. Significantly fewer abstracts related to radiation dose were presented at the interventional radiology meetings compared with the diagnostic radiology meetings (162 abstracts [1% of total] vs. 2706 [3% of total]; P < 0.001). On average 15±7 interventional radiology abstracts (range, 6-27) and 246±105 diagnostic radiology abstracts (range, 112-389) pertaining to radiation dose were presented at each meeting. The PubMed query r...

show abstract

“…In their example, a difference of 8 Gy between standard and non-standard methods was observed [11]. Therefore, the QC of X-ray systems is very important [14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To ensure the quality control (QC) of FPD systems, an easy method for evaluating FPD imaging performance for both stationary and moving objects is required, especially with fluoroscopy [7][8][9][10][11]. Evaluating the visibility of moving objects (e.g., guide wires) in FPD systems is also important for evaluating image retention (or motion blur).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Rotatable Quality Control Phantom for Evaluating the Performance of Flat Panel Detectors in Imaging Moving Objects

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the use of diagnostic X-ray equipment with flat panel detectors (FPDs) has increased, so has the importance of proper management of FPD systems. To ensure quality control (QC) of FPD system, an easy method for evaluating FPD imaging performance for both stationary and moving objects is required. Until now, simple rotatable QC phantoms have not been available for the easy evaluation of the performance (spatial resolution and dynamic range) of FPD in imaging moving objects. We developed a QC phantom for this purpose. It consists of three thicknesses of copper and a rotatable test pattern of piano wires of various diameters. Initial tests confirmed its stable performance. Our moving phantom is very useful for QC of FPD images of moving objects because it enables visual evaluation of image performance (spatial resolution and dynamic range) easily.

show abstract

Management of Patient Skin Dose in Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

Cited by 99 publications

References 7 publications

ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI Clinical Competence Statement on Physician Knowledge to Optimize Patient Safety and Image Quality in Fluoroscopically Guided Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures

ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI Clinical Competence Statement on Physician Knowledge to Optimize Patient Safety and Image Quality in Fluoroscopically Guided Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures

Radiation dose reduction: comparative assessment of publication volume between interventional and diagnostic radiology

A Rotatable Quality Control Phantom for Evaluating the Performance of Flat Panel Detectors in Imaging Moving Objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About