Cécile Etard1,2, Emeline Bigand2,3, Cécile Salvat2,4, Vincent Vidal3,5, Jean Paul Beregi5,6, Amaury Hornbeck2,7, Joël Greffier8,9. 1. Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, 31 avenue de la Division Leclerc, 92260, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France. 2. French Society of Medical Physicists (SFPM), Paris, France. 3. Department of Radiology, La Timone University Hospital, 264 rue Saint Pierre, 13385, Marseille Cedex, France. 4. Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Lariboisière Hospital, AP-HP, 2 rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, Paris, France. 5. French Society of Radiology (SFR) - Interventional Radiology Federation (FRI), Paris, France. 6. Department of Radiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2415, Bd Prof Robert Debré, 30029, Nîmes Cedex 9, France. 7. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Trousseau University Hospital, AP-HP, 26 rue du Dr Arnold Netter, 75012, Paris, France. 8. French Society of Medical Physicists (SFPM), Paris, France. joel.greffier@chu-nimes.fr. 9. Department of Radiology, Nîmes University Hospital, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2415, Bd Prof Robert Debré, 30029, Nîmes Cedex 9, France. joel.greffier@chu-nimes.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A national retrospective survey on patient doses was performed by the French Society of Medical physicists to assess reference levels (RLs) in interventional radiology as required by the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom. METHODS: Fifteen interventional procedures in neuroradiology, vascular radiology and osteoarticular procedures were analysed. Kerma area product (KAP), fluoroscopy time (FT), reference air kerma and number of images were recorded for 10 to 30 patients per procedure. RLs were calculated as the 3rd quartiles of the distributions. RESULTS: Results on 4600 procedures from 36 departments confirmed the large variability in patient dose for the same procedure. RLs were proposed for the four dosimetric estimators and the 15 procedures. RLs in terms of KAP and FT were 90 Gm.cm2 and 11 mins for cerebral angiography, 35 Gy.cm2 and 16 mins for biliary drainage, 75 Gy.cm2 and 6 mins for lower limbs arteriography and 70 Gy.cm2 and 11 mins for vertebroplasty. For these four procedures, RLs were defined according to the complexity of the procedure. For all the procedures, the results were lower than most of those already published. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports RLs in interventional radiology based on a national survey. Continual evolution of practices and technologies requires regular updates of RLs. KEY POINTS: • Delivered dose in interventional radiology depends on procedure, practice and patient. • National RLs are proposed for 15 interventional procedures. • Reference levels (RLs) are useful to benchmark practices and optimize protocols. • RLs are proposed for kerma area product, air kerma, fluoroscopy time and number of images. • RLs should be adapted to the procedure complexity and updated regularly.
OBJECTIVES: A national retrospective survey on patient doses was performed by the French Society of Medical physicists to assess reference levels (RLs) in interventional radiology as required by the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom. METHODS: Fifteen interventional procedures in neuroradiology, vascular radiology and osteoarticular procedures were analysed. Kerma area product (KAP), fluoroscopy time (FT), reference air kerma and number of images were recorded for 10 to 30 patients per procedure. RLs were calculated as the 3rd quartiles of the distributions. RESULTS: Results on 4600 procedures from 36 departments confirmed the large variability in patient dose for the same procedure. RLs were proposed for the four dosimetric estimators and the 15 procedures. RLs in terms of KAP and FT were 90 Gm.cm2 and 11 mins for cerebral angiography, 35 Gy.cm2 and 16 mins for biliary drainage, 75 Gy.cm2 and 6 mins for lower limbs arteriography and 70 Gy.cm2 and 11 mins for vertebroplasty. For these four procedures, RLs were defined according to the complexity of the procedure. For all the procedures, the results were lower than most of those already published. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports RLs in interventional radiology based on a national survey. Continual evolution of practices and technologies requires regular updates of RLs. KEY POINTS: • Delivered dose in interventional radiology depends on procedure, practice and patient. • National RLs are proposed for 15 interventional procedures. • Reference levels (RLs) are useful to benchmark practices and optimize protocols. • RLs are proposed for kerma area product, air kerma, fluoroscopy time and number of images. • RLs should be adapted to the procedure complexity and updated regularly.
Authors: A Aroua; H Rickli; J-C Stauffer; P Schnyder; P R Trueb; J-F Valley; P Vock; F R Verdun Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-10-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Monika Foerth; Michael C Seidenbusch; Mojtaba Sadeghi-Azandaryani; Ursula Lechel; Karla Maria Treitl; Marcus Treitl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R Ruiz-Cruces; E Vano; F Carrera-Magariño; F Moreno-Rodriguez; M M Soler-Cantos; M Canis-Lopez; J Hernández-Armas; F J Diaz-Romero; F Rosales-Espizua; J M Fernandez-Soto; R Sanchez-Casanueva; A Martin-Palanca; M Perez-Martinez; A Gil-Agudo; M A Zarca-Diaz; V Parra-Osorio; J J Muñoz Ruiz-Canela; T Moreno-Sanchez; A Lopez-Medina; C Moreno-Saiz; P Galan-Montenegro; J J Gallego-Beuter; M Gonzalez-de-Garay; J C Zapata-Jimenez; J M Pastor-Vega; S Cañete Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: E Vano; H Järvinen; A Kosunen; R Bly; J Malone; A Dowling; A Larkin; R Padovani; H Bosmans; O Dragusin; W Jaschke; P Torbica; C Back; A Schreiner; C Bokou; S Kottou; V Tsapaki; J Jankowski; S Papierz; J Domienik; A Werduch; D Nikodemova; D Salat; K Kepler; M D Bor; J Vassileva; R Borisova; S Pellet; R H Corbett Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: E Vano; J M Fernandez; R M Sanchez; D Martinez; L Lopez Ibor; A Gil; C Serna-Candel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Greffier; C Etard; O Mares; F Pereira; D Defez; C Duverger; P Branchereau; J P Beregi; R Coulomb; A Larbi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel Schmitz; Thomas Vogl; Nour-Eldin Abdelrehim Nour-Eldin; Boris Radeleff; Jens-Christian Kröger; Andreas H Mahnken; Harald Ittrich; Hans-Björn Gehl; Bernd Plessow; Joachim Böttcher; Josef Tacke; Markus Wispler; Ulrich Rosien; Wolfgang Schorr; Markus Joerdens; Nicolas Glaser; Erik-Sebastian Fuchs; Andrea Tal; Bettina Friesenhahn-Ochs; Thomas Leimbach; Lars Höpner; Marko Weber; Stefan Gölder; Michael Böhmig; Svetlana Hetjens; Jochen Rudi; Alexander Schegerer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xinhua Li; Joshua Adam Hirsch; Madan M Rehani; Kai Yang; Theodore Alan Marschall; Bob Liu Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yigit Ozpeynirci; Christoph Trumm; Robert Stahl; David Fischer; Thomas Liebig; Robert Forbrig Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 3.156