Ionising radiation exposure to orthopaedic trainees: the effect of sub-specialty training

The Effect of an Intraoperative Real-Time Counter on Radiation Exposure Events During Operative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures

PURPOSE

Occupational radiation exposure can have adverse health consequences for surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine if utilization of an intraoperative, real-time radiograph counter results in decreased radiation exposure events (REEs) during open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of distal radius fractures (DRFs).

METHODS

We reviewed all cases of isolated ORIF DRFs performed at a single center from January 2021 to February 2023. All cases performed on or after January 1, 2022 used an intraoperative radiograph counter, referred to as a "shot-clock" (SC) group. Cases prior to this date were performed without a SC and served as a control group (NoSC group). Baseline demographics, fracture, and surgical characteristics were recorded. Final intraoperative radiographs were reviewed to record reduction parameters (radial inclination, volar tilt, and ulnar variance). REEs, fluoroscopy exposure times, and total radiation doses milligray (mGy) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 160 ORIF DRF cases were included in the NoSC group, and 135 were included in the SC group. The NoSC group had significantly more extra-articular fractures compared with the SC group. Reduction parameters after ORIF were similar between groups. The mean number of REEs decreased by 48% in the SC group. Cases performed with the SC group had significantly lower total radiation doses (0.8 vs 0.5 mGy) and radiation exposure times (41.9 vs 24.2 seconds). Mean operative times also decreased for the SC group (70 minutes) compared with that for the NoSC group (81 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

A real-time intraoperative radiograph counter was associated with decreased REEs, exposure times, and total radiation doses during ORIF DRFs. Cases performed with a SC had significantly shorter operative times without compromising reduction quality. Using an intraoperative SC counter during cases requiring fluoroscopy may aid in decreasing radiation exposure, which serves as an occupational hazard for hand and upper-extremity surgeons.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic II.

Comparing Efficacy of Lumbar Disc Space Preparation via an Anterior-to-Psoas Approach Between Intraoperative Conventional Fluoroscopy and Computed Tomographic-Based Navigation System: A Cadaveric Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intervertebral disc space preparation via an anterior-to-psoas (ATP) approach using conventional fluoroscopy (Flu) and computer tomography (CT)-based navigation by evaluating the disc remaining area.

METHODS

We equally assigned 24 lumbar disc levels from 6 cadavers into Flu and CT-based navigation (Nav) groups. Two surgeons performed disc space preparation using the ATP approach in both groups. Digital images of each vertebral endplate were obtained, and the remaining disc tissue was calculated in total and in quadrants. Operative time, number of attempts at disc removal, endplate violation area, number of endplate violation segments, and access angle were recorded.

RESULTS

The overall percentage of remaining disc tissue was significantly less in the Nav group than in the Flu group (32.7% vs. 43.3% respectively, P < 0.001). A significant difference was found in the posterior-ipsilateral (4.2% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.005) and posterior-contralateral (6.1% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.002) quadrants, respectively. No significant between-group difference was found concerning operative time, number of attempts at disc removal, endplate violation area, number of endplate violation segments, or access angle.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative CT-based navigation may improve vertebral endplate preparation quality for an ATP approach, especially in the posterior quadrants. This technique may offer an effective alternative disc space and endplate preparation methods and may help enhance the fusion rates.

Novel Machine Vision Image Guidance System Significantly Reduces Procedural Time and Radiation Exposure Compared With 2-dimensional Fluoroscopy-based Guidance in Pediatric Deformity Surgery

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy imaging has been commonly adopted for guidance during complex pediatric spinal deformity correction. Despite the benefits, fluoroscopy imaging emits harmful ionizing radiation, which has been well-established to have deleterious effects on the surgeon and operating room staff. This study investigated the difference in intraoperative fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure during pediatric spine surgery between 2D fluoroscopy-based navigation and a novel machine vision navigation system [machine vision image guidance system (MvIGS)].

METHODS

This retrospective chart review was conducted at a pediatric hospital with patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion for spinal deformity correction from 2018 to 2021. Patient allocation to the navigation modality was determined by the date of their surgery and the date of implementation of the MvIGS. Both modalities were the standard of care. Intraoperative radiation exposure was collected from the fluoroscopy system reports.

RESULTS

A total of 1442 pedicle screws were placed in 77 children: 714 using MvIGS and 728 using 2D fluoroscopy. There were no significant differences in the male-to-female ratio, age range, body mass index, distribution of spinal pathologies, number of levels operated on, types of levels operated on, and the number of pedicle screws implanted. Total intraoperative fluoroscopy time was significantly reduced in cases utilizing MvIGS (18.6 ± 6.3 s) compared with 2D fluoroscopy (58.5 ± 19.0 s) ( P < 0.001). This represents a relative reduction of 68%. Intraoperative radiation dose area product and cumulative air kerma were reduced by 66% (0.69 ± 0.62 vs 2.0 ± 2.1 Gycm 2 , P < 0.001) and 66% (3.4 ± 3.2 vs 9.9 ± 10.5 mGy, P < 0.001) respectively. The length of stay displayed a decreasing trend with MVIGS, and the operative time was significantly reduced in MvIGS compared with 2D fluoroscopy for an average of 63.6 minutes (294.5 ± 15.5 vs 358.1 ± 60.6 min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In pediatric spinal deformity correction surgery, MvIGS was able to significantly reduce intraoperative fluoroscopy time, intraoperative radiation exposure, and total surgical time, compared with traditional fluoroscopy methods. MvIGS reduced the operative time by 63.6 minutes and reduced intraoperative radiation exposure by 66%, which may play an important role in reducing the risks to the surgeon and operating room staff associated with radiation in spinal surgery procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; retrospective comparative study.

Rational Usage of Fracture Imaging in Children and Adolescents

In this paper, authors introduce the basic prerequisite for rational, targeted, and above all, child-oriented diagnosis of fractures and dislocations in children and adolescents is in-depth prior knowledge of the special features of trauma in the growth age group. This review summarizes the authors' many years of experience and the state of the current pediatric traumatology literature. It aims to provide recommendations for rational, child-specific diagnostics appropriate to the child, especially for the area of extremity injuries in the growth age. The plain radiograph remains the indispensable standard in diagnosing fractures and dislocations of the musculoskeletal system in childhood and adolescence. Plain radiographs in two planes are the norm, but in certain situations, one plane is sufficient. X-rays of the opposite side in acute diagnostics are obsolete. Images to show consolidation after conservative treatment is rarely necessary. Before metal removal, however, they are indispensable. The upcoming diagnostical tool in pediatric trauma is ultrasound. More and more studies show that in elected injuries and using standardized protocols, fracture ultrasound is as accurate as plain radiographs to detect and control osseous and articular injuries. In acute trauma, CT scans have only a few indications, especially in epiphyseal fractures in adolescents, such as transitional fractures of the distal tibia or coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus. CT protocols must be adapted to children and adolescents to minimize radiation exposure. MRI has no indication in the detection or understanding of acute fractures in infants and children. It has its place in articular injuries of the knee and shoulder to show damage to ligaments, cartilage, and other soft tissues. Furthermore, MRI is useful in cases of remaining pain after trauma without radiological proof of a fracture and in the visualization of premature closure of growth plates after trauma to plan therapy. Several everyday examples of rational diagnostic workflows, as the authors recommend them, are mentioned. The necessity of radiation protection must be taken into consideration.

Are Indian orthopaedic surgeons aware of the health hazards of radiation exposure? A survey and review on awareness and ways to mitigate them

BACKGROUND

Standardized education on the short and long-term health hazards of radiation and thus the awareness regarding current radiation exposure limits is restricted in the field of orthopaedics. There is a lack of awareness regarding the risks related to radiation exposure amongst orthopaedic surgeons and therefore the recommended safety precautions to assess and mitigate these potential risks should be emphasized. Orthopaedic surgeons should adopt the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle. All precautions should be taken to keep all members of the operation room safe from radiation exposure and safeguard patients too.

METHODS

The survey questionnaire developed in consult with senior orthopaedic surgeons and radiation protection officer consisting of 27 questions was conducted among the orthopaedic surgeons and resident doctors.

RESULTS

15% responders were unaware about risks of radiation exposure in routine orthopaedic surgery and 82% unaware of the recommended yearly allowance per individual. 30% responders were unaware of correct positioning of the C-arm and 44% were unaware regarding the same distance to be maintained from the C-arm to reduce radiation exposure. 27% responders were unaware regarding pulsed fluoroscopy and its benefits. 45% responders were unsure regarding the thickness of the lead apron. 83% never use a thyroid gland shield and none of the responders use leaded eye glasses. Only 11% responders use lead badges for documentation of radiation exposure.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic surgeons should understand the basics and basis of radiation exposure limits, be familiar with this literature on the incidence of tumors, dermatitis, cancer risk and cataracts and understand the current intraoperative fluoroscopy safety recommendations. The damaging effects to human tissue caused by radiation exposure are documented since the first reports regarding use of radiographs, hence emphasis on radiation safety and protection should be universally incorporated into graduate medical education.

Image quality and Dose Comparison of Three Mobile Intraoperative 3D imaging Systems in Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the radiation exposure and image quality for three intraoperative imaging systems (Airo, Spin, O-arm) using varying radiation dose settings in a single cadaver model.

METHODS

Axial images of L4-5 instrumentation were obtained using three manufacturer dose protocols for each system. Measurements included scattered radiation dose, subjective and objective image quality (IQ) and estimates of patient effective dose (ED). Four images per system were selected at each dose level. Using the Likert scale (1- best, 5- worst), nine reviewers rated the same 36 images. Objective IQ measures the degree of streak artifacts (lines with incorrect data from metal objects) in each image. A composite figure of merit (FOM) was derived based on ED and subjective and objective scores.

RESULTS

The best subjective IQ scores were Spin medium (1.44), high dose (1.78), and Airo (2.22) low dose. The best objective IQ scores were Airo (87.3), followed by Spin (89.1). ED low dose results in mSv included Airo (1.6), Spin (1.9) and O-arm (3.3). The ED high-dose results in mSv included Spin (4.6), Airo (9.7) and O-arm (9.9). Scatter radiation measurements for low dose in μGy included Spin (21.9), Airo (31.8) and O-arm (33.9). Scatter radiation for high dose in μGy included Spin (55.9), O-arm (104.5) and Airo (200). The best FOM score was for the Airo low dose, followed by Spin medium and high dose.

CONCLUSION

The selection of intraoperative imaging systems requires a greater understanding of the risks and benefits of radiation exposure and IQ.

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

The use of ionising radiation for plain film radiography and computerised tomography is fundamental in both diagnostics and treatment for orthopaedics. However, radiation is not without risk as high exposure can increase the risk of cancer. Little time is spent educating doctors about the relative risks of radiation, both to patients and themselves. In addition, there are common misunderstandings about the best ways to mitigate such risk. We aim to provide an overview of the fundamental principles of the use of ionising radiation and its risks within the context of orthopaedic surgery. While providing a narrative review of the current literature, we discuss the basic physics, standards of good practice and relevant UK and European regulations. We discuss the risks to patients and surgeons and suggest ways that these can be mitigated in the operating theatre. A thorough understanding of the risks, and appropriate procedural rules, with respect to the use of ionising radiation is essential for those in orthopaedic practice.

Internship Experience in Orthopaedics and Traumatology and its Impact on Becoming a Specialist

INTRODUCTION

The German practical year is the last clinical placement period during Medical School. However, it remains unclear how medical students evaluate the practical year in orthopaedics and traumatology (Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie; O & U) and whether it has an impact on becoming an O & U specialist.

METHOD

We analysed data of 146 medical students (46,7% female) who completed the placement in O & U. From the evaluation, 37 items were included in the analyses. Participants who could imagine becoming an O & U specialist (O & U-Ja) following graduation were statistically compared to those who could not (O & U-Nein).

RESULTS

Overall 123 (83.7%) trainees indicated that they would like to become an O & U specialist (O & U-Ja), 18 (12.8%) negated (O & U-Nein) and 6 (4.1%) were undecided. Groups did not differ for sex and age (sex: Chi² = 2.50, p = 0.114; age: F [1.93] < 1, p = 0.764). Group differences were found for practical orientation, independency, acquisition of anamnesis and diagnostics skills and problem-solving expertise with students who could imagine becoming an O & U specialist (O & U-Ja) giving the highest ratings.

DISCUSSION

Evaluations of the last medical year are essential in order to continuously improve the internship experience and to attract students towards a certain medical field and, moreover, to post-graduate specialist training. Clinics and institutions who already emphasize on the factors derived from this evaluation, or are continuously working on improvement, might be more able to attract young professionals, since personnel acquisition is starting early in the medical field.

Radiation exposure and fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures among orthopedic surgeons in South Korea

Background

The use of fluoroscopically-guided interventional (FGI) procedures by orthopedic surgeons has been increasing. This study aimed to investigate the occupational radiation exposure among orthopedic surgeons in South Korea.

Methods

A nationwide survey of orthopedic surgeons was conducted in South Korea in October 2017. The dosimetry data of the participants were obtained from the National Dosimetry Registry. The orthopedic surgeons were categorized by job specialty [spine or trauma specialists, other orthopedic specialists, and residents], and descriptive statistics for the demographics and work-related characteristics were presented. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors for the orthopedic surgeons who were not linked with the dosimetry data.

Results

Among the total participants (n = 513), 40.5% of the orthopedic surgeons spent more than 50% of their time working with the FGI procedures when compared with their overall work. The average frequency of the FGI procedures among the orthopedic surgeons was 12.3 days per month. Less than 30% of the participants were regularly provided with radiation monitoring badges. The proportion of subjects who always wore lead aprons and thyroid shields were 52 and 29%, respectively. The residents group experienced more unfavorable working conditions of radiation exposure than the other specialists. The dosimetry data were not significantly linked among the residents (odds ratio [OR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–3.95) and orthopedic surgeons working at small hospitals (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.05–21.51).

Conclusions

Although orthopedic surgeons often performed FGI procedures, they wore protective gear less frequently, and a large proportion of orthopedic surgeons were not monitored by the national radiation dosimetry system. As the number of radiation procedures performed by the orthopedic surgeons increases, more intensive approaches are needed to reduce radiation exposure, especially for spine and trauma surgeons.

Radiation risk amongst orthopaedic surgeons - Do we know the risk?

Radiation risk amongst orthopaedic surgeons and theatre personnel is increasing with increased use of fluoroscopy imaging. Increased radiation risk has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of malignancies, ocular and thyroid disorders. Very high exposures have been reported in spinal surgery and during intra-medullary nailing. With an increase in modern and percutaneous methods, the use of intra-operative fluoroscopy has increased as well. The aim of this article was to review the available evidence of radiation risk amongst healthcare personnel. A systematic search was carried out in PubMED, CINAHL and Cochrane on intra-operative radiation in trauma and orthopaedic operating room. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies and systematic reviews reporting on radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time and references to specific safety guidelines. This article highlights the safety aspects of radiation protection and harmful effects of radiation during orthopaedic procedures. The responsibility to minimise radiation exposure in operating theatre lies with the team within the operating room.

C-arm fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgical practice

The use of C-arm fluoroscopy in intraoperative orthopaedic procedures has become an important tool in modern orthopaedic surgical practice. It enhances the technical proficiency of the surgeon in addition to reducing the morbidity and length of hospital stay of the patient. Despite the documented benefits of this device, there has been a growing concern about the increased radiation exposure to the surgical team. We therefore present the review of the literature on the usefulness of C-arm fluoroscopy, pitfalls in application of the machine as well as the harmful radiation effects and precautionary measures that need to be observed when using the C-arm fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgical procedures.

Senior medical students' awareness of radiation risks from common diagnostic imaging examinations

BACKGROUND

Senior medical students represent future physicians who commonly refer patients for diagnostic imaging studies that may involve ionizing radiation. The radiology curriculum at the University of British Columbia provides students with broad-based knowledge about common imaging examinations. The purpose of this study was to investigate students' awareness of radiation exposures and risks.

METHODS

An anonymous multiple-choice cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to final year medical students to assess knowledge of radiation from common diagnostic examinations and radiation-related risks following completion of the longitudinal radiology curriculum, carried out over the four years of medical training.

RESULTS

Sixty-three of 192 eligible students participated (33% response rate). The majority felt that knowledge of radiation doses of common imaging examinations is somewhat or very important; however, only 12% (N = 8) routinely discuss radiation-related risks with patients. While all respondents recognized children as most sensitive to the effects of radiation, only 24% (N = 15) correctly identified gonads as the most radiation-sensitive tissue. Almost all respondents recognized ultrasound and MRI as radiation free modalities. Respondents who correctly identified the relative dose of common imaging examinations in chest x-ray equivalents varied from 3-77% (N = 2 - 49); the remaining responses were largely underestimates. Finally, 44% (N = 28) correctly identified the excess risk of a fatal cancer from an abdominal CT in an adult, while the remainder underestimated this risk.

CONCLUSION

Medical students acknowledge the importance of radiation-related issues to patient care. While almost all students are familiar with radiation-free modalities, many are not familiar with, and commonly underestimate, the relative doses and risks of common imaging studies. This may expose patients to increasing imaging investigations and exposure to radiation hazards.

Tracking Cumulative Radiation Exposure in Orthopaedic Surgeons and Residents: What Dose Are We Getting?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of cumulative radiation exposure received by orthopaedic surgeons and residents in various subspecialties. We obtained dosimeter measures over 12 months on 24 residents and 16 attending surgeons.

METHODS

Monthly radiation exposure was measured over a 12-month period for 24 orthopaedic residents and 16 orthopaedic attending surgeons. The participants wore a Landauer Luxel dosimeter on the breast pocket of their lead apron. The dosimeters were exchanged every rotation (5 to 7 weeks) for the resident participants and every month for the attending surgeon participants. Radiation exposure was compared by orthopaedic subspecialty, level of training, and type of fluoroscopy used (regular C-arm compared with mini C-arm).

RESULTS

Orthopaedic residents participating in this study received monthly mean radiation exposures of 0.2 to 79 mrem/month, lower than the dose limits of 5,000 mrem/year recommended by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC). Senior residents rotating on trauma were exposed to the highest monthly radiation (79 mrem/month [range, 15 to 243 mrem/month]) compared with all other specialty rotations (p < 0.001). Similarly, attending orthopaedic surgeons who specialize in trauma or deformity surgery received the highest radiation exposure of their peers, and the mean exposure was 53 mrem/month (range, 0 to 355 mrem/month).

CONCLUSIONS

Residents and attending surgeons performing trauma or deformity surgical procedures are exposed to significantly higher doses of radiation compared with all other subspecialties within orthopaedic surgery, but the doses are still within the recommended limits.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of ionizing radiation in the operating room has become an indispensable part of orthopaedic surgery. Although all surgeons in our study received lower than the yearly recommended dose limit, it is important to be aware of how much radiation we are exposed to as surgeons and to take measures to further limit that exposure.

The Great Unknown-A systematic literature review about risk associated with intraoperative imaging during orthopaedic surgeries

INTRODUCTION

Modern techniques in orthopaedic surgery using minimally invasive procedures, and increased use of fluoroscopic imaging present a potential increased risk to surgeons due to ionizing radiation exposure. This article is a systematic review of recent literature on radiation exposure of orthopaedic surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed and Cochrane searches were performed on intraoperative radiation exposure covering English and German articles published between 1.1.2000 and 11.8.2014. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies and systematic literature reviews focusing on radiation exposure of orthopaedic surgeons during surgical procedures of the musculoskeletal system reporting either effective dose (whole body) or equivalent dose at the organ level. All included articles were reviewed with focus on the surgical specialty, the procedure type, the imaging system used, the radiation measurement method, the fluoroscopy time, the radiation exposure, the use of radiation protection, and any references to specific safety guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-four eligible publications were identified. However, the lack of well-designed studies focusing on radiation exposure of surgeons prevents pooling of data. Highest exposure and subsequent equivalent doses were reported from spinal surgery (up to 4.8mSv of equivalent dose to the hand) and intramedullary nailing (up to 0.142mSV of equivalent dose to the thyroid). Radiation exposure was reduced by 96.9% and 94.2% when wearing a thyroid collar and a lead apron.

CONCLUSIONS

With the increasing use of intraoperative imaging, there is a growing need for radiation awareness by the operating surgeon. Strict adherence to radiation protection should be enforced to protect in-training surgeons. Strategies to reduce exposure include C-arm position, distance, protective wear, and new imaging technologies. Radiation exposure is harmful and action should be taken to minimize exposure.

Fluoroscopic freehand and electromagnetic-guided targeting system for distal locking screws of humeral intramedullary nail

PURPOSE

The current techniques used to lock distal screws for the nailing of long bone fractures expose the surgeons, radiologists and patients to a hearty dose of ionizing radiation. The Sureshot™ Distal Targeting System is a new technique that, with the same results, allows for shorter surgery times and, consequently, less exposure to radiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was performed on 59 patients (34 males and 25 females) with a simple humerus fracture diagnosis, type 1.2.A according to the AO classification, who were divided into two groups. Group 1 was treated with ante-grade intramedullary nailing with distal locking screws inserted with a freehand technique. Group 2 was treated with the intramedullary nail using the Sureshot™ Distal Targeting System. Two intra-operative time parameters were evaluated in both groups: the time needed for the positioning of the distal locking screws and the time of exposure to ionizing radiations during this procedure.

RESULTS

Group 2 showed a lower average distal locking time compared to group 1 (645.48″ vs. 1023.57″) and also a lower average time of exposure to ionizing radiation than in group 1 (4.35″ vs. 28.96″).

CONCLUSION

The Sureshot™ Distal Targeting System has proven to be equally effective when compared to the traditional techniques, with the added benefits of a significant reduction in both surgical time and risk factors related to the exposure to ionizing radiation for all the operating room staff and the patient.

Ionizing Radiation Doses Detected at the Eye Level of the Primary Surgeon During Orthopaedic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the ionizing radiation dose received by the eyes of orthopaedic surgeons during various orthopaedic procedures. Secondary objective was to compare the ionizing radiation dose received between differing experience level.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative study between January 2013 and May 2014.

SETTING

Westmead Hospital, a Level 1 Trauma Centre for Greater Western Sydney.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 26 surgeons volunteered to participate within the study.

INTERVENTION

Experience level, procedure performed, fluoroscopy time, dose area product, total air kerma, and eye dose received was recorded. Participants were evaluated on procedure and experience level.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Radiation dose received at eye level by the primary surgeon during an orthopaedic procedure.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 131 cases was recorded and included for analysis. The mean radiation dose detected at the eye level of the primary surgeon was 0.02 mSv (SD = 0.05 mSv) per procedure. Radiation at eye level was only detected in 31 of the 131 cases. The highest registered dose for a single procedure was 0.31 mSv. Femoral nails and pelvic fixation procedures had a significantly higher mean dose received than other procedure groups (0.04 mSv (SD = 0.07 mSv) and 0.04 mSv (SD = 0.06 mSv), respectively). Comparing the eye doses received by orthopaedic consultants and trainees, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of harmful levels of radiation exposure at eye level to orthopaedic surgeons is low. This risk is greatest during insertion of femoral intramedullary nails and pelvic fixation, and it is recommended that in these situations, surgeons take all reasonable precautions to minimize radiation dose. The orthopaedic trainees in this study were not subjected to higher doses of radiation than their consultant trainers. On the basis of these results, most of the orthopaedic surgeons remain well below the yearly radiation dose of 20 mSv as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Patient and surgeon radiation exposure during spinal instrumentation using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Imaging modalities used to visualize spinal anatomy intraoperatively include X-ray studies, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT). All of these emit ionizing radiation.

PURPOSE

Radiation emitted to the patient and the surgical team when performing surgeries using intraoperative CT-based spine navigation was compared.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a retrospective cohort case-control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Seventy-three patients underwent CT-navigated spinal instrumentation and 73 matched controls underwent spinal instrumentation with conventional fluoroscopy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Effective doses of radiation to the patient when the surgical team was inside and outside of the room were analyzed. The number of postoperative imaging investigations between navigated and non-navigated cases was compared.

METHODS

Intraoperative X-ray imaging, fluoroscopy, and CT dosages were recorded and standardized to effective doses. The number of postoperative imaging investigations was compared with the matched cohort of surgical cases. A literature review identified historical radiation exposure values for fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumentation.

RESULTS

The 73 navigated operations involved an average of 5.44 levels of instrumentation. Thoracic and lumbar instrumentations had higher radiation emission from all modalities (CT, X-ray imaging, and fluoroscopy) compared with cervical cases (6.93 millisievert [mSv] vs. 2.34 mSv). Major deformity and degenerative cases involved more radiation emission than trauma or oncology cases (7.05 mSv vs. 4.20 mSv). On average, the total radiation dose to the patient was 8.7 times more than the radiation emitted when the surgical team was inside the operating room. Total radiation exposure to the patient was 2.77 times the values reported in the literature for thoracolumbar instrumentations performed without navigation. In comparison, the radiation emitted to the patient when the surgical team was inside the operating room was 2.50 lower than non-navigated thoracolumbar instrumentations. The average total radiation exposure to the patient was 5.69 mSv, a value less than a single routine lumbar CT scan (7.5 mSv). The average radiation exposure to the patient in the present study was approximately one quarter the recommended annual occupational radiation exposure. Navigation did not reduce the number of postoperative X-rays or CT scans obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative CT navigation increases the radiation exposure to the patient and reduces the radiation exposure to the surgeon when compared with values reported in the literature. Intraoperative CT navigation improves the accuracy of spine instrumentation with acceptable patient radiation exposure and reduced surgical team exposure. Surgeons should be aware of the implications of radiation exposure to both the patient and the surgical team when using intraoperative CT navigation.

Peri-operative radiation exposure: Are overweight patients at increased risks?

The aim of this study was to identify if there was a correlation between body mass index (BMI) and intra-operative radiation exposure. A retrospective review of 81 patients who had sliding hip screw fixation for femoral neck fractures in one year was completed, recording body mass index (BMI), screening time, dose area product (DAP), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, seniority of operating surgeon and complexity of the fracture configuration. There was a statistically significant correlation between dose area product and BMI. There was no statistically significant relationship between screening time and BMI. There was no statistical difference between ASA grade, seniority of surgeon, or complexity of fracture configuration and dose area product. Simulated stochastic risks were increased for overweight patients. Overweight patients are exposed to increased doses of radiation regardless of length of screening time. Surgeons and theatre staff should be aware of the increased radiation exposure during fixation of fractures in overweight patients and, along with radiographers, ensure steps are taken to minimise these risks. Whilst such radiation dosages may have little adverse effect for individual patients, these findings may be of more relevance and concern to staff that will be exposed to increased radiation.

The compliance with and knowledge about radiation protection in operating room personnel: a cross-sectional study with a questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Radiation protection is becoming more important with an ongoing increase in radiation exposure due to the use of X-rays in minimally invasive procedures in orthopaedic and trauma surgeries. However, sufficient education in medical physics and radiation protection can often be improved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of four questions about personal data and ten questions about radiation protection was distributed to lead consultants, consultants, residents, medical students, and medical technical assistants at two institutions, a level 1 trauma center and a children's hospital.

RESULTS

This study consisted of 83 participants. The compliance with radiation protection, i.e., usage of a dosimetry, an apron, and a thyroid shield on a regular basis was only seen in 54 %. Participants from the trauma center wore a dosimeter and thyroid shield significantly more often. The regular use of a thyroid shield differed significantly between job positions. It was observed in 80 % of students, but only 15 % of technical assistants. Only 65 % of all knowledge questions were answered correctly. There was a discrepancy between incorrectly answered knowledge questions (35 %) and those marked as uncertain (20 %). Different job positions did not have an impact on the answers to the questions in most instances.

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance with and the knowledge about radiation protection seems to be unnecessarily low in trauma physicians and technical assistants. The discrepancy in falsely answered questions and those marked as uncertain may suggest that participants may overestimate their knowledge about radiation protection, which is potentially harmful due to the increased radiation exposure. Therefore, we advocate a quick and valuable training of trauma surgeons and medical staff addressing the important preventive measures, some of which are illustrated in the present study. These consist of wearing dosimetry and protection devices, reduction in X-ray duration, preferably antero-posterior C-arm positioning with the image intensifier close to the patient and the surgeon, maximal distance, collimation, and increased voltage. Furthermore, the use of visual feedback on complex and potentially hazardous radiation facts may be useful for training purposes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with a questionnaire.

Occupational radiation exposure from C arm fluoroscopy during common orthopaedic surgical procedures and its prevention

BACKGROUND

Image intensifiers have become popular due to the concept of minimally invasive surgeries leading to decreasing invasiveness, decreased operative time, and less morbidity. The drawback, however, is an increased risk of radiation exposure to surgeon, patient and theatre staff. These exposures have been of concern due to their potential ability to produce biological effects. The present study was embarked upon to analyse the amount of radiation received by orthopedic surgeons in India using standard precautionary measures and also to bring awareness about the use of image intensifier safety in everyday practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve right-handed male orthopedic surgeons (4 senior consultants, 5 junior consultants and 3 residents) were included in a three month prospective study for radiation exposure measurement with adequate protection measures in all procedures requiring C Arm fluoroscopy. Each surgeon was provided with 5 Thermo Luminescent Dosimeter (TLD) badges which were tagged at the level of neck, chest, gonads and both wrists. Operative time and exposure time of each procedure was recorded. Exposure dose of each badge at the end of the study was obtained and the results were analysed.

RESULTS

Mean radiation exposure to all the parts were well within permissible limits. There was a significantly positive correlation between the exposure time and the exposure dose for the left wrist (r=0.735, p<0.01) and right wrist (r=0.58, p<0.05). The dominant hand had the maximum exposure overall.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic surgeons are not classified radiation workers. The mean exposure doses to all parts of the body were well within permissible limits. Nothing conclusive, however, can be said about the stochastic effects (chance effects like cancers). Any amount of radiation taken is bound to pose an additional occupational hazard. It is thus desirable that radiation safety precautions should be taken and exposures regularly monitored with at least one dosimeter for monitoring the whole-body dose.

Intraoperative fluoroscopy, portable X-ray, and CT: patient and operating room personnel radiation exposure in spinal surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Intraoperative imaging is essential in spinal surgery to both determine the correct level and place implants safely. Surgeons have a variety of options: C-arm fluoroscopy (C-arm), portable X-ray (XR) radiography, and portable cone-beam computed tomography (O-arm). Although these modalities have their respective advantages and disadvantages, direct comparison of radiation exposure to either the patient or the operating room (OR) staff has not been made.

PURPOSE

To determine the amount of radiation exposure to patients and OR staff during spine surgery with C-arm, XR, and O-arm.

STUDY DESIGN

An experimental model to assess radiation exposure to OR staff and phantom patient during spine surgery.

METHODS

A plastic phantom was created to emulate patient volume and absorption scattering characteristics of a typical sized adult abdominal volume. Radiation exposure was measured with ion chamber dosimeters to determine entrance phantom and scatter exposures at common positions occupied by OR staff for C-arm, XR, and O-arm in typical image acquisition during spinal surgery.

RESULTS

Single lateral (LAT)/posterior-anterior entrance patient radiation exposure for C-arm was on average 116/102 mR, single-exposure XR for LAT/anterior-posterior (AP) was 3,435/2,160 mR, and single-exposure O-arm for LAT/AP was 4,360/5,220 mR. O-arm surface exposure LAT/AP was equivalent to 38/41 C-arm and 1.5/2.4 XR exposures. The surgeon and surgeon assistant had higher levels of scatter radiation for C-arm, followed by O-arm and XR. For the LAT C-arm acquisition, a 7.7-fold increase in radiation exposure was measured on the X-ray tube side compared with the detector side. The anesthesiologist scatter radiation level for a single acquisition was highest for O-arm, followed by XR and C-arm. The radiologic technologist scatter radiation level was highest for XR, followed by O-arm and fluoroscopy. Overall radiation exposure to OR staff was less than 4.4 mR for a single acquisition in all modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of radiation risk to the patient and OR staff should be part of the decision for utilization of any specific imaging modality during spinal surgery. This study provides the surgeon with information to better weigh the risks and benefits of each imaging modality.

Radiation exposure to hand surgeons' hands: a practical comparison of large and mini C-arm fluoroscopy

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the radiation exposure to surgeons' hands with large and mini C-arm fluoroscopy in a practical, clinically based model.

METHODS

Two hand surgeons monitored radiation exposure to their hands with a ring dosimeter over a 14-month period using large and mini C-arm fluoroscopic units. One surgeon performed all cases with a large C-arm unit in a hospital setting, and the other performed all cases with mini C-arms in surgical centers. For each case, fluoroscopic time, the output displayed by the unit, radiation by time, and ring dosimeter absorption were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 160 consecutive cases were reviewed with 71 cases and 89 cases in the large and mini C-arm groups, respectively. The median output displayed by the large C-arm was 0.7 mGy/case, and the median output displayed by the mini C-arm was 10.0 mGy/case. With output as a product of time, the median calculated values were 0.02 mGy/s for the large C-arm group and 0.28 mGy/s for the mini C-arm group. Cumulative ring dosimeter absorption to the surgeons' hands was found to be 380 mrem for 71 cases in the large C-arm group versus 1,000 mrem for 89 cases in the mini C-arm group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our model, the use of the mini C-arm resulted in more than a 10-fold increase in the rate of output and approximately double the dosimeter absorption to the surgeon's hand compared with the large C-arm. Although it has been shown that the mini C-arm produces less radiation scatter, in a practical model, it may not be a safer alternative with respect to the surgeon's hands. Based on these findings, we recommend that surgeons be more aware of radiation exposure risk, know their C-arm unit's specifications, and try to minimize radiation exposure.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Safer mobile fluoroscopy in the trauma theatre: a survey of orthopaedic registrars and theatre staff

The Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 (POPUMET) made it compulsory from June 1990 for all staff directing medical exposures to ionising radiation to receive formal tuition at a core knowledge course. This course described the hazards of ionising radiation and the safe use of x-ray equipment. It instructed on the nature of ionising radiation and its interaction with tissues, principles and means of dose reduction to patient and operator, the importance of using the patient’s existing radiological information and statutory responsibilities. The POPUMET course was discontinued following the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 (IR(ME)R). IR(ME)R training for healthcare professionals is available as a half-day theoretical course suitable for those designated as ‘referrer’ by their employers. Other locally run ionising radiation protection courses are tailored to the varied requirements of a spectrum of healthcare professionals.

Influence of fracture type and surgeon experience on the emission of radiation in distal radius fractures

INTRODUCTION

Ionising radiation is a potential risk for potentially exposed personnel. Only a few studies have examined the factors contributing to the emission of radiation in orthopaedic trauma procedures. We hypothesize that the experience of the surgeon and the fracture type influence the emission of radiation intraoperatively.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis, we examined 100 consecutive distal radius fractures receiving a volar plate osteosynthesis. The following parameters were documented: demographic data, plate system, fracture type, duration of the surgical procedure and duration of the emission of radiation, the experience level of the surgeon and the first assisting surgeon.

RESULTS

Of all included patients (74 female), 48 had a type A, 7 a type B and 45 a type C fracture. The duration of radiation was longer for type C fractures [1.04 min (min)] in comparison to type A fractures (0.88 min) (P = 0.8152). In the type C subgroup, the highest amount of radiation was required for type C3 fractures (1.6 min), which was significantly more in comparison to type A (P = 0.0460) and type C1 fractures (P = 0.0089). The intraoperative emission of radiation (P = 0.00141) and the procedure time (P = 0.0006) depended on the experience of the surgical team.

CONCLUSION

The emission of radiation during this procedure depends on the fracture type and the experience of the surgical team. Operating theatre personnel should be aware of the higher emission rates during the treatment of type C fractures and in teaching hospitals with inexperienced team members.

Radiation-free distal locking of intramedullary nails: evaluation of a new electromagnetic computer-assisted guidance system

Distal locking of intramedullary nails (IMNs) is a difficult part of intramedullary nailing (IMN) that could be time-consuming and expose the surgeon, the surgery personnel and the patient to a considerable amount of radiation as fluoroscopy is usually guiding the procedure. Utilization of electromagnetic fields for that purpose offers an attractive alternative. The SURESHOT™ Distal Targeting System (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN, USA) is a novel commercially available radiation-free aiming system that utilizes computerized electromagnetic field tracking technology for the distal locking of IMNs. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the system we conducted the present study. Nineteen patients (six females-thirteen males, mean age 39.5 years, range 17-85 years) with closed diaphyseal fracture of the femur (eight patients) or the tibia (eleven patients) were treated with IMN using the SURESHOT™ Distal Targeting System for the distal interlocking. All targeting attempts were successful at first try and followed by correct positioning of the screws. Mean time for distal locking of tibial IMNs (two screws) was 219sec (range 200-250sec). Mean time for distal locking of femoral IMNs (two screws) was 249 (range 220-330sec). In the current study the SURESHOT™ Distal Targeting System proved to be accurate, fast and easy to learn.

Awareness and attitudes amongst basic surgical trainees regarding radiation in orthopaedic trauma surgery

This study investigated the awareness and attitudes of basic surgical trainees. Trainees were asked to answer questions from a pre-set questionnaire. Fifty basic surgical trainees from England and Wales were involved in the study. The areas covered were basic knowledge of radiation hazards, use of protective wear, pregnancy test in female trauma victims of reproductive age, and principles of safe radiation. All the questions were asked in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery. All questions were evidence based.It was unfortunate to notice that basic surgical trainees are lacking in the essential knowledge of ionising radiation. Most of the trainees are not adhering to radiation safety principle, and are not practising safely. The authors strongly recommend that surgical trainees should have more robust training and information available in this context. And they suggest that it should be provided on local, regional and national basis. © 2010 Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. All rights reserved.

Cervical spine imaging using mini--C-arm fluoroscopy: patient and surgeon exposure to direct and scatter radiation

STUDY DESIGN

Direct and scatter radiation was measured during cadaveric cervical spine imaging with a mini-C-arm fluoroscope.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiation exposure to the patient and surgeon when using a mini-C-arm fluoroscope to image the cervical spine.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Prior studies have quantified radiation exposure using large C-arm fluoroscopy during procedures involving the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. To our knowledge, no studies have quantified radiation exposure during mini-C-arm fluoroscopy of the cervical spine.

METHODS

A calibrated OEC MINI 6800 C-arm was used to image a prepared cadaveric cervical spine specimen, which included the skull. The specimen was suspended on an adjustable polycarbonate platform. Thirteen film badge dosimeters were mounted at various positions and angles to detect direct and scatter radiation. Recorded exposure levels were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Surgeon exposures from the mini-C-arm were considerably lower than previously reported with the standard C-arm, but nonetheless concerning. Patient exposures were considerable and not always reduced compared with values from the standard C-arm. The kVp generated by the mini-C-arm was similar to the standard C-arm. Dosimeters mounted in the same plane recorded dissimilar amounts of radiation during the same test, which underscores the influence of shape on the amount of reflected scatter.

CONCLUSIONS

Although using a mini-C-arm unit may reduce exposure levels, substantial exposure to both patient and staff is still achievable. Use of a mini-C-arm for cervical spine imaging reduces exposure to the surgeon more effectively than to the patient. To lower the risk of radiation exposure in the cadaver laboratory, a mini-C-arm should be used in each instance that offers appropriate visualization. In the operating room, all appropriate radiation dose-reducing measures should be strictly enforced by supervising physicians to minimize risk to patients, medical staff, and themselves.

Cervical spine imaging using standard C-arm fluoroscopy: patient and surgeon exposure to ionizing radiation

STUDY DESIGN

A cadaveric cervical spine specimen is imaged with a standard C-arm fluoroscope during a simulated procedure. Patient and surgeon exposure to radiation is estimated by placing dosimeters at various locations in 3-dimensional space.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiation exposure to patient and surgeon when using C-arm fluoroscopy during a simulated cadaveric surgical procedure involving the cervical spine.

SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND DATA

The use of mobile fluoroscopy has become commonplace in orthopaedics. With the current trend towards minimal access techniques, fluoroscopy has become requisite to achieving satisfactory outcomes. Studies have shown that spine surgeons may be at elevated risk for radiation exposure compared to other orthopaedists. Exposure while using C-arm fluoroscopy for procedures involving the pelvis, as well as thoracic and lumbar spine has been documented. However, there are no equivalent studies that evaluate exposure during cervical spine imaging.

METHODS

A standard OEC 9800 C-arm was used to image a prepared cadaveric cervical spine specimen, which was suspended on an adjustable platform. Film badge dosimeters were mounted at various positions and angles to detect direct and scatter radiation. Testing was conducted in various radiation dose mapping "scenarios." The configurations tested altered the proximity of the specimen and jig relative to the radiation source. We attempted to capture radiation exposure in various locations, from a best-case to a worst-case scenario, as may be realistically encountered in a procedural setting. RESULTS.: Potential exposure to the patient and surgeon were consistently measurable, and of concern. As the imaged specimen was positioned closer to the radiation source, exposure to the patient was markedly amplified. Exposure to the surgeon did not increase as dramatically. There was a great degree of variability in the exposure doses recorded by the peripheral dosimeters. Even dosimeters that were placed in the same plane diverged widely in their measured exposure. This highlights the influence of the shape of the imaged specimen on reflected scatter. Scatter radiation doses on both sides of the specimen were similar.

CONCLUSION

Care should be taken when working on both sides of the imaged subject. Considerable radiation exposure can be encountered when working with a C-arm fluoroscope if appropriate precautions are not observed. All appropriate radiation dose-reducing measures should be strictly enforced by the supervising physician to minimize risk to the patient and the medical team.