Patient radiation exposure during general fluoroscopy examinations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the level of patient radiation dose received in general fluoroscopy examinations, compare the findings with the international diagnostic reference levels (IDRLs), and establish the initial institutional (local) LDRLs. A comprehensive survey was conducted for general fluoroscopy examinations using the medical records of a Radiology Department of a leading regional hospital over a period close to one year. The cumulative reference point air kerma false(normalKa,rfalse), kerma area product (KAP) and fluoroscopy time (FT) were recorded for six hundred and fifty (30% pediatric and 70% adult) patients undergoing routine fluoroscopy examinations using X‐ray equipment with built‐in integrated dose measuring system. Results which were obtained for adult general fluoroscopy indicated that 83% and 33% were below the IDRLs for KAP and fluoroscopy time, respectively. In children, 60% were found to be below the only available KAP diagnostic reference levels. Local diagnostic reference levels (LDRLs) have been proposed with respect to the missing DRLs for the Ka r, KAP, and fluoroscopy time. The majority of the examinations in the study were performed with longer fluoroscopy time, patient dose values per examination type were found to be broad and the mean values above the international diagnostic reference levels. This calls for proper and improved training and radiation protection skills for the responsible personnel, especially the equipment operators.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.59.C‐, 87.59.cf, 87.53.Bn, 87.50.‐a, 87.53.‐j

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy of post-esophagectomy water-soluble computed tomography and fluoroscopic swallow studies: A meta-analysis

“…The radiation dose is higher with CTWSCS (4–6 mSv) than with FWSCS (2 mSv), which is a further consideration particularly in younger patients, although the total doses are within the same order of magnitude. [ 11 12 ] Furthermore, CT of the thorax and upper abdomen costs an average of $1,912 in the US, while upper abdominal contrast study cost is $629. [ 13 ] Clearly, this is subject to wide variation across sites, however, this increased cost of CT is a further consideration for healthcare providers and patients.…”

Fluoroscopy: An essential diagnostic modality in the age of high-resolution cross-sectional imaging

“…Finally, radiation dose parameters and time of exam must remain within safety limits. As shown in a 2015 analysis by Wambani et al [ 36 ], the majority of the fluoroscopic examinations in their selected cohort were performed with both longer fluoroscopy time and with patient dose values with mean values above the international diagnostic reference levels. This again shows that proper training for the responsible personnel is essential, and emphasizes that correct fluoroscopy technique be an integral part of teaching for radiology residency programs.…”

Pediatric patient and staff dose measurements in barium meal fluoroscopic procedures

“…P KA values have been estimated for pediatric barium meal examinations according to patient weight and age Chapple et al, 1992Chapple et al, , 1998Martin et al, 1994;Ruiz et al, 1996;Canevaro et al, 2004;Chateil et al, 2004;Hiorns et al, 2006;Damilakis et al, 2006;Dimitriadis et al, 2011;Emigh et al, 2013;Wambani et al, 2014;Yakoumakis et al, 2014;Hart et al, 2009). However, in Brazil, no diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been established for fluoroscopy-guided examinations.…”