The use of ionising radiation in orthopaedic surgery: principles, regulations and managing risk to surgeons and patients

Optimization of radiation doses for open lumbar spinal fusion using C-arm fluoroscopy and impact on radiation-induced cancer: a pilot study

PURPOSE

Intraoperative fluoroscopy use is essential during spinal fusion procedures. The amount of radiation dose should always be minimized. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of halving the frame rate from 12.5 to 6.25 frames per second (fps) and to quantify the reduction in the risk of developing radiation-induced cancer.

METHODS

This pilot study included 34 consecutive patients operated for open lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) with or without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). C-arm modes were changed from half-dose (12.5 frames per second (fps), group I) to quarter-dose (6.25 fps, group II). Age, body mass index, surgical procedure, number of treated levels, and complications were collected. Kerma area product (KAP), cumulative air kerma (CAK), and fluoroscopy time were compared. Effective dose and radiation-induced cancer risk were estimated.

RESULTS

Eighteen and 16 patients were, respectively, included in group I and II. Demographic, surgical data, and fluoroscopy time were similar in both groups. However, CAK, KAP, and effective dose were significantly lower in group II, respectively, 0.56 versus 0.41 mGy (p = 0.03), 0.09 versus 0.06 Gy cm2 (p = 0.04), and 0.03 versus 0.02 mSv (p = 0.04). Radiation-induced cancer risk decreased by 47.7% from 1.49 × 10-6 to 7.77 × 10-7 after optimization. No complications were recorded in either group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility of setting 6.25 fps for TLIF with and without PLF. By halving the fps, radiation-induced cancer risk could be almost divided by two, without compromising surgical outcome. Finally, after optimization, the risk of developing radiation-induced cancer was less than one in a million.

Are immediate postoperative X-Rays valuable in evaluating complications of primary total hip arthroplasty?

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the complications of primary total hip arthroplasty based on immediate postoperative X-rays. The overall quality and cost of X-rays were assessed.

METHODS

The institutional database was queried to identify all patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty in a single institution between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Immediate postoperative X-rays were reviewed to identify the complications such as periprosthetic fractures, dislocation, and fixation failure. The quality and cost of X-ray were assessed. The complications were categorized as "known" and "unknown" according to the intraoperative fluoroscopic results.

RESULTS

A total of 518 total hip arthroplasties were included in this study. Based on intraoperative fluoroscopy, periprosthetic fractures were found in 10 (2%) THAs. Compared to the X-rays taken immediately after surgery, 9 periprosthetic fractures (recorded as "known") were found and 1 was not (recorded as "unknown"). There was no significant difference between intraoperative fluoroscopy and X-rays (P > 0.05). Of the 518 X-rays, 225 (43%) were of suboptimal quality. The cost of a single portable pelvic X-ray was $647.

CONCLUSION

In total hip arthroplasty, X-rays taken immediately after surgery rarely reveal unknown complications. The X-rays are often of suboptimal quality, have minimal clinical utility, and are less cost-effective.

Screw Insertion Time, Fluoroscopy Time, and Operation Time for Robotic-Assisted Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Compared With Freehand Technique

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to clarify the superiority of robotic-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement in terms of screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time.

Methods

The subjects were 46 patients who underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an open procedure for lumbar degenerative disease from April 2021 to February 2022. The robot group contained 29 cases of screw insertion using a spine robotic system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland). The freehand group contained 17 cases of screw insertion with the freehand technique utilizing the conventional C-arm image guidance. The screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time were compared between the robot and the freehand group.

Results

The screw insertion time did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 179.0 ± 65.2 sec; freehand group: 164.2 ± 83.4 sec; p = 0.507). The fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 28.3 ± 25.8 sec; freehand group: 67.5 ± 72.8 sec; p = 0.011). The fluoroscopy time per segment was also significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 17.8 ± 23.0 sec; freehand group: 60.2 ± 74.8 sec; p = 0.007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robot group (robot group: 249.6 ± 72.5 min; freehand group: 195.8 ± 60.1 sec; p = 0.013), but the operation time per segment did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 144.1 ± 39.0 min; freehand group: 159.7 ± 34.4 min; p = 0.477).

Conclusions

The screw insertion time and operation time per segment were similar when employing the spine robotic system compared to the freehand technique; however, the fluoroscopy time was shorter. The fluoroscopy time per segment in the robot group was 29.6% of the time of the freehand group using the C-arm. The surgeon's radiation exposure is thought to be decreased since the spine robotic system shortens the fluoroscopy time.