Literature DB >> 31496490

Radiation exposure in prone vs. modified supine position during PCNL: Results with an anthropomorphic model.

Marie-Pier St-Laurent1, Steve Doizi2, Maéva Rosec2, Jean-Baptiste Terrasa2, Luca Villa2, Olivier Traxer2, Jonathan Cloutier1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Radiation exposure during urological procedures is still of concern in the urology community. It has been reported that percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in supine position has less irradiation, as the puncture is mostly done under ultrasound guidance. However, it can also be done under fluoroscopy guidance. Unfortunately, data on radiation exposure during PCNL is lacking since they are often drawn from generalization and extrapolation, or they do not evaluate new procedures or different positions. The aim of our study was to compare the radiation dose depending on the position of the surgeon during PCNL.
METHODS: A portable C-arm was used in standard mode (32 impulsions/second; 98 kV, 3.8 mA). Specific dosimeters were placed for lens, extremity, and torso. Anthropomorphic models and hand phantom models were used to reproduce the position of surgeon and patient (with same bone density as human) during PCNL in prone and modified supine position. Fluoroscopy time (FT) was six minutes to obtain higher exploitable signal, and the results are given for a FT of three minutes (more realistic). Ten percent of the FT is done with an angulation of 15 degrees and the rest in anteroposterior position.
RESULTS: The equivalent doses (ED) are given in uSV (uncertainty k=2). During the modified supine position: neck, lens, right index finger, left thumb, and index finger received EDs of 99 (20%), 62 (18%), 437 (10%), 112 (12%), and 204 (10%), respectively. In a prone position, the phantom received ED on the neck, lens, right thumb and index finger, left thumb and index finger of 85 (20%), 92 (12%), 401 (10%), 585 (10%), 295 (10%), and 567 (10%), respectively. In both positions, the right hand seems more exposed than the left hand.
CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose is 1.5- and 1.3-fold higher for lens and extremities, respectively, in prone position PCNL compared to modified supine position. Both positions are still well below the recommended limit for professional exposure.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31496490      PMCID: PMC6737729          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  10 in total

1.  Radiation exposure and the urologist: what are the risks?

Authors:  G O Hellawell; S J Mutch; G Thevendran; E Wells; R J Morgan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  The debate over percutaneous nephrolithotomy positioning: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Brian Duty; Zhamshid Okhunov; Arthur Smith; Zeph Okeke
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Dosimetric models of the eye and lens of the eye and their use in assessing dose coefficients for ocular exposures.

Authors:  W E Bolch; G Dietze; N Petoussi-Henss; M Zankl
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2015-03-27

4.  Risk of Radiation-Induced Cataracts: Investigation of Radiation Exposure to the Eye Lens During Endourologic Procedures.

Authors:  Josefin Hartmann; Florian Distler; Martin Baumüller; Ewald Guni; Sascha Pahernik; Michael Wucherer
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 5.  ICRP publication 118: 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.

Authors:  F A Stewart; A V Akleyev; M Hauer-Jensen; J H Hendry; N J Kleiman; T J Macvittie; B M Aleman; A B Edgar; K Mabuchi; C R Muirhead; R E Shore; W H Wallace
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2012-02

6.  The evaluation of radiologic methods for access guidance in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Alberto Breda; Angelo Territo; Cesare Scoffone; Christian Seitz; Thomas Knoll; Thomas Herrmann; Mariannhe Brehmer; Palle J S Osther; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2017-11-12       Impact factor: 1.612

7.  Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I.

Authors:  Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Radiation exposure to the patient and operating room personnel during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Geeta Kumari; Pratik Kumar; Pankaj Wadhwa; Monish Aron; Narmada P Gupta; Prem N Dogra
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.370

9.  Radiation doses of patients and urologists during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  M Safak; T Olgar; D Bor; G Berkmen; C Gogus
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 1.394

10.  Biological bases for the revision of dose limits to the eye lens.

Authors:  Srinivasa Badanidiyoor Rao
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.