A G Dudley1, M E Dwyer2, J A Fox2, J T Dwyer2, P Dangle2, B T Ristau2, H A Stephany2, F X Schneck2, G M Cannon2, M C Ost2. 1. Department of Urology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; de la Torre Research, New York, New York (JTD). Electronic address: annedudleymd@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; de la Torre Research, New York, New York (JTD).
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pediatric tissues are exquisitely sensitive to ionizing radiation from diagnostic studies and therapies involving fluoroscopy. We prospectively monitored radiation exposure in our pediatric urology patients during fluoroscopy guided operative procedures with single point dosimeters to quantify radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children undergoing fluoroscopy guided urological procedures were prospectively enrolled in the study from 2013 to 2015. Single point dosimeters were affixed to skin overlying the procedural site for the durations of the procedures to record dosimetry data. Patient demographics, procedural variables and fluoroscopic settings were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients underwent 96 procedures, including retrograde pyelography, ureteral stent insertion, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Median patient age was 12 years (range 0.3 to 17) and median body mass index percentile for age was 70.7 (1.0 to 99.1). Median skin entrance radiation dose for all procedures performed was 0.56 mGy. Median dosages associated with the 29 diagnostic procedures and 49 definitive interventions were 0.6 mGy (mean 0.8, range 0.1 to 2.2) and 0.7 mGy (1.1, 0.0 to 5.5), respectively. The dose associated with the 18 procedures of temporization was significantly higher by comparison (median 1.0 mGy, mean 2.6, range 0.1 to 10.7, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric radiation exposure is not insignificant during urological procedures. Further multi-institutional work would provide context for our findings. Protocols to optimize fluoroscopic settings and minimize patient exposure, and guidelines for radiation based imaging should have a key role in all pediatric radiation safety initiatives.
PURPOSE: Pediatric tissues are exquisitely sensitive to ionizing radiation from diagnostic studies and therapies involving fluoroscopy. We prospectively monitored radiation exposure in our pediatric urology patients during fluoroscopy guided operative procedures with single point dosimeters to quantify radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Children undergoing fluoroscopy guided urological procedures were prospectively enrolled in the study from 2013 to 2015. Single point dosimeters were affixed to skin overlying the procedural site for the durations of the procedures to record dosimetry data. Patient demographics, procedural variables and fluoroscopic settings were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients underwent 96 procedures, including retrograde pyelography, ureteral stent insertion, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Median patient age was 12 years (range 0.3 to 17) and median body mass index percentile for age was 70.7 (1.0 to 99.1). Median skin entrance radiation dose for all procedures performed was 0.56 mGy. Median dosages associated with the 29 diagnostic procedures and 49 definitive interventions were 0.6 mGy (mean 0.8, range 0.1 to 2.2) and 0.7 mGy (1.1, 0.0 to 5.5), respectively. The dose associated with the 18 procedures of temporization was significantly higher by comparison (median 1.0 mGy, mean 2.6, range 0.1 to 10.7, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric radiation exposure is not insignificant during urological procedures. Further multi-institutional work would provide context for our findings. Protocols to optimize fluoroscopic settings and minimize patient exposure, and guidelines for radiation based imaging should have a key role in all pediatric radiation safety initiatives.
Authors: Akbar Nouralizadeh; Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas; Hamid Pakmanesh; Abbas Basiri; Mohammad Hadi Radfar; Mohammad Hossein Soltani; Mahmoodreza Nasiri; Esmaeil Rezghi Maleki; Emal Lesha; Mohammad Ghasemi-Rad; Behzad Narouie Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 4.226