Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 674–681 | Cite as

Patient dose reference levels in surgery: a multicenter study

  • J. GreffierEmail author
  • C. Etard
  • O. Mares
  • F. Pereira
  • D. Defez
  • C. Duverger
  • P. Branchereau
  • J. P. Beregi
  • R. Coulomb
  • A. Larbi
Interventional
  • 179 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To assess diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in surgery for the most frequent procedures as required by the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom.

Methods

A survey was conducted in six centers. Eight orthopedic, urology and gastrointestinal surgical procedures were analyzed. Kerma area product (KAP) and fluoroscopy time (FT) were recorded for 50 patients (except for elbow: 30 patients) per procedure and per center from September 2016 to September 2017. DRLs were calculated as the 3rd quartiles of the distributions. For shoulder surgery, DRLs were defined according to the complexity of the procedure. For hand/wrist and foot/ankle surgery, DRLs were defined according to the technology (conventional C-arm vs. mini-C-arm).

Results

Results of 1870 procedures were retrieved. DRLs were calculated for the two dosimetric indicators and the eight procedures. DRLs were 2130 mGy.cm2 and 1.4 min for proximal femoral intramedullary nail, 1185 mGy.cm2 and 0.9 min for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 2195 mGy.cm2 and 1.0 min for double-J (pigtail) ureteral catheter insertion. For shoulder surgery, KAP and FT were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for intramedullary procedures compared to extramedullary procedures. For hand/wrist and foot/ankle surgery, the KAPs were significantly higher (p < 0.05) with conventional C-arm compared to mini-C-arm, but FTs were not significantly different (p: not significant).

Conclusion

This study reports DRLs in surgery based on a multicentric survey.

Key Points

• Delivered dose in surgery depends on procedure, practice and patient.

• Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are proposed for eight surgical procedures.

• DRLs are useful to benchmark practices and optimize protocols.

Keywords

Surgery Radiation exposure Radiation protection Dosimetry Fluoroscopy 

Abbreviations

DRL

Diagnostic reference level

FT

Fluoroscopic time

KAP

Kerma area product

DMS

Dose management system

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all radiation protection operators who took the time to collect and check the data, especially in private clinics. We thank Sarah Kabani for her help in editing the manuscript.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jean Paul Beregi.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• multicenter study

Supplementary material

330_2018_5600_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1554 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rehani MM, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Vañó E et al (2010) ICRP Publication 117. Radiological protection in fluoroscopically guided procedures performed outside the imaging department. Ann ICRP 40:1–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Commission on Radiological protection (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harding K, Thomson WH (1997) Radiological protection and safety in medicine - ICRP 73. Eur J Nucl Med 24:1207–1209Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Public Health England (2016) National diagnostic reference levels (guidance). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diagnostic-radiology-national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls/national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls. Accessed 18 July 2016
  5. 5.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2012) Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging: recommendations for the United States. NCRP report No. 172Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2010) Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically-guided interventional medical procedures. NCRP report No. 168. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Office fédéral de la santé publique (2008) Confédération suisse. Niveaux de référence diagnostiques (NRD) en radiologie interventionnelle. Notice R-06-05Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Commission on Radiological protection (2007) Radiation protection in medicine. Publication 105. Ann ICRP 37. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Official Journal of the European Union (2013) Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionizing radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/EuratomGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ et al (2017) ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. Ann ICRP 46:1–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Etard C, Bigand E, Salvat C et al (2017) Patient dose in interventional radiology: a multicentre study of the most frequent procedures in France. Eur Radiol 27:4281–4290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biostatgv (2016) http://marne.u707.jussieu.fr/biostatgv. Accessed 2 Sept 2016
  13. 13.
    Roux A, Bronsard N, Blanchet N, de Peretti F (2011) Can fluoroscopy radiation exposure be measured in minimally invasive trauma surgery? Revue de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique 97:644–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hardman J, Elvey M, Shah N, Simson N, Patel S, Anakwe R (2015) Defining reference levels for intra-operative radiation exposure in orthopaedic trauma: A retrospective multicentre study. Injury 46:2457–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee YS, Lee HK, Cho JH, Kim HG (2015) Analysis of radiation risk to patients from intra-operative use of the mobile X-ray system (C-arm). J Res Med Sci 20:7–12PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pillai A, Jain M (2004) Dose area product measurement in orthopaedic trauma. An attempt at establishing a local diagnostic reference level. Radiography (Lond) 10:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller DL, Kwon D, Bonavia GH (2009) Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U. S. practice. Radiology 253:753–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018
corrected publication August/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNîmes University HospitalNîmes Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté NucléaireFontenay-aux-RosesFrance
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryNîmes University HospitalNîmes Cedex 9France
  4. 4.Service de Physique Médicale et RadioprotectionCentre Hospitalier Lyon SudPierre-BeniteFrance

Personalised recommendations