Patient dose reference levels in surgery: a multicenter study
- 281 Downloads
To assess diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in surgery for the most frequent procedures as required by the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom.
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 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).
This study reports DRLs in surgery based on a multicentric survey.
• 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.
KeywordsSurgery Radiation exposure Radiation protection Dosimetry Fluoroscopy
Diagnostic reference level
Kerma area product
Dose management system
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.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• multicenter study
- 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.Harding K, Thomson WH (1997) Radiological protection and safety in medicine - ICRP 73. Eur J Nucl Med 24:1207–1209Google Scholar
- 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.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.National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2010) Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically-guided interventional medical procedures. NCRP report No. 168. Google Scholar
- 7.Office fédéral de la santé publique (2008) Confédération suisse. Niveaux de référence diagnostiques (NRD) en radiologie interventionnelle. Notice R-06-05Google Scholar
- 8.International Commission on Radiological protection (2007) Radiation protection in medicine. Publication 105. Ann ICRP 37. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 12.Biostatgv (2016) http://marne.u707.jussieu.fr/biostatgv. Accessed 2 Sept 2016