Literature DB >> 28969816

Fluoroscopy Learning Curve in Hip Arthroscopy-A Single Surgeon's Experience.

Kevin M Smith1, Neil L Duplantier1, Kimbelyn H Crump1, Domenica A Delgado1, Stephanie L Sullivan1, Patrick C McCulloch1, Joshua D Harris2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if (1) absorbed radiation dose and (2) fluoroscopy time decreased with experience over the first 100 cases of a single surgeon's hip arthroscopy practice.
METHODS: Subjects who underwent hip arthroscopy for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement and labral injury were eligible for analysis. Inclusion criteria included the first 100 subjects who underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon (December 2013 to December 2014). Subject demographics, procedure details, fluoroscopy absorbed dose (milligray [mGy]), and time were recorded. Subjects were categorized by date of surgery to one of 4 possible groups (25 per group). One-way analysis of variance was used to determine if a significant difference in dose (mGy) or time was present between groups. Simple linear regression analysis was performed to determine the relation between case number and both radiation dose and fluoroscopy time.
RESULTS: Subjects underwent labral repair (n = 93), cam osteoplasty (n = 90), and pincer acetabuloplasty (n = 65). There was a significant (P < .001 for both) linear regression between case number and both radiation dose and fluoroscopy time. A significant difference in mGy was observed between groups, group 1 the highest and group 4 the lowest amounts of radiation (P = .003). Comparing individual groups, group 4 was found to have a significantly lower amount of radiation than group 1 (P = .002), though it was not significantly lower than that of group 2 (P = .09) or group 3 (P = .08). A significant difference in fluoroscopy time was observed between groups, group 1 the highest and group 4 the lowest times (P = .05). Comparing individual groups, group 4 was found to have a significantly lower fluoroscopy time than group 1 (P = .039). Correction for weight, height, and body mass index all revealed the same findings: significant (P < .05) differences in both dose and time across groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The absorbed dose of radiation and fluoroscopy time decreased significantly over the first 100 cases of a single surgeon's hip arthroscopy practice learning curve. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic, retrospective, noncomparative case series.
Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28969816     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  4 in total

1.  Ultrasound Can Determine Joint Distraction During Hip Arthroscopy but Fluoroscopic-Guided Portal Placement Is Superior.

Authors:  Nicholas A Trasolini; Lakshmanan Sivasundaram; Morgan W Rice; Safa Gursoy; Ian M Clapp; Thomas D Alter; Stéfano Gaggiotti; Shane J Nho
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2022-05-24

2.  Is It Safe to Use a Lead Screen During Hip Arthroscopy?

Authors:  Alexander Rahill; Leah Biffin; Camdon Fary; Alasdair G Sutherland; Phong Tran
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-02-03

3.  The Femoroacetabular Impingement Resection (FAIR) Arc: An Intraoperative Aid for Assessing Bony Resection During Hip Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Bogdan A Matache; Daniel J Kaplan; Jordan Fried; Christopher Burke; Mohammad Samim; Thomas Youm
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2021-06-22

4.  What factors affect fluoroscopy use during Bernese periacetabular osteotomy for acetabular dysplasia?

Authors:  James D Wylie; Michael P McClincy; Evan K Stieler; Michael B Millis; Young-Jo Kim; Christopher L Peters; Eduardo N Novais
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2019-09-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.