Radiation doses to operators performing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt using a flat-panel detector-based system and ultrasound guidance for portal vein targeting
The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate effective dose (E) of operators performing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in a single centre. Patients’ radiation exposure was also collected.
Between 8/2015 and 6/2016, 45 consecutive TIPS were performed in adult patients using a flat-panel detector-based system (FPDS) and real-time ultrasound guidance (USG) for portal vein targeting. Electronic personal dosimeters were used to measure radiation doses to the primary and assistant operators, anaesthesia nurse and radiographer. Patients’ radiation exposure was measured with dose area product (DAP); fluoroscopy time (FT) was also collected.
Mean E for the primary operator was 1.40 μSv (SD 2.68, median 0.42, range 0.12 – 12.18), for the assistant operator was 1.29 μSv (SD 1.79, median 0.40, range 0.10 – 4.89), for the anaesthesia nurse was 0.21 μSv (SD 0.67, median 0.10, range 0.03 – 3.99), for the radiographer was 0.42 μSv (SD 0.71, median 0.25, range 0.03 – 2.67). Mean patient DAP was 59.31 GyCm2 (SD 56.91, median 31.58, range 7.66 – 281.40); mean FT was 10.20 min (SD 7.40, median 10.40, range 3.8 – 31.8).
The use of FPDS and USG for portal vein targeting allows a reasonably low E to operators performing TIPS.
• The operators’ E vary according to the complexity of the procedure.
• FPDS and USG allow a reasonably low E to TIPS operators.
• FPDS and USG have an important role in reducing the occupational exposure.
KeywordsTIPS Radiation protection Occupational exposure Ultrasound Liver
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt
Dose area product
Flat-panel detector based system
Real-time ultrasound guidance
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Angelo Luca. 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. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: prospective, observational, performed at one institution.
- 4.Miraglia R, Maruzzelli L, Cortis K et al (2015) Radiation Exposure in Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation. Cardiovasc Intervent RadiolGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wambersie A (2005) International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements. Patient dosimetry for X-rays used in medical imaging. ICRU Report 74. J ICRU 5(2):iv–viGoogle Scholar
- 12.Siegel JA, Pennington CW, Sacks B, Welsh JS. (2015) The Birth of the Illegitimate Linear No-Threshold Model: An Invalid Paradigm for Estimating Risk Following Low-dose Radiation Exposure. Am J Clin OncolGoogle Scholar
- 15.Finkelstein MM (1998) Is brain cancer an occupational disease of cardiologists? Canadian J Cardiol 14:1385–1388Google Scholar
- 20.International Commission on Radiological Protection (2012) ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs—threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. ICRP Publication 118. Ann. ICRP 41(1–2). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ketelsen D, Groezinger G, Maurer M et al. (2016) Three-dimensional C-arm CT-guided transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement: Feasibility, technical success and procedural time. Eur RadiolGoogle Scholar
- 22.Chen Y, Ye P, Li Y et al (2015) Percutaneous transhepatic balloon-assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for chronic, totally occluded, portal vein thrombosis with symptomatic portal hypertension: procedure technique, safety, andclinical applications. Eur Radiol 25(12):3431–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar