Prospective observational analysis of intraoperative radiation exposure with a mini C-arm intensifier in percutaneous forefoot surgery

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous forefoot surgery has been associated with higher radiation exposure than the conventional approach. However, there is little data on forefoot surgery using a mini C-arm intensifier. We, therefore, conducted a prospective study to (1) evaluate the intraoperative radiation received by the surgeon during percutaneous forefoot surgery with a mini C-arm; (2) compare the radiation received by the surgeon with the guidelines for occupational exposure issued by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (20 millisieverts per year [mSv/year] for the whole body, 500mSv/year for the hands, and 20mSv/year for the lens of the eye); and (3) compare the radiation received during percutaneous forefoot surgery with that of the open approach, which has already been reported in the literature.

HYPOTHESIS

The radiation received by the surgeon during percutaneous forefoot surgery with a mini C-arm is lower than the ICRP guidelines, and the findings reported in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective single-center study was conducted from September 2020 to May 2021. A total of 639 feet (i.e., 435 patients) were included. Of these 639 feet, 336 (52%) were hallux valgus repairs, 49 (8%) were stand-alone procedures of the lateral rays, and 124 (19%) were a combination of both. The radiation dose data was retrieved from the mini C-arm daily: dose-area product (DAP) in centigray per square centimeter (cGy/cm2) and radiation exposure duration in seconds. The doses received by the surgeon were collected every month by 4 passive dosimeters (hand, eye lens, and chest [on and under the lead apron]) and 2 active dosimeters (on and under the lead apron).

RESULTS

The DAP emitted by the mini C-arm during an operating day was 0.10±0.01cGy/cm2 (range, 0.0-3.9), and the mean daily radiation duration was 34.7±19.3seconds (range, 0.7-226.8). There was a mean of 8±8 (range, 1-18) elective procedures per operating day. The daily reading on the active dosimeter worn on the lead apron was 0.002±0 microSv (range, 0-0.04), while the one worn under the apron was 0.001±0 microSv (range, 0-0.03). The equivalent doses over the 7-month study period for the hand, eye lens, and chest (over and under the apron) were 0.14mSv, 0mSv, 0.22mSv, and 0mSv, respectively.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The radiation exposure in percutaneous forefoot surgery with a mini C-arm intensifier observed in our study was lower than the ICRP recommendations and literature findings during open surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; prospective study without a control group.

Description of the Simple Ankle Value: A Simplified Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for the Assessment of Ankle and Hindfoot Function

Background

The Simple Ankle Value (SAV) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in which patients grade their ankle function as a percentage of that of their contralateral uninjured ankle.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The primary aims of this study were to validate the SAV and evaluate its correlation with other PROMs. It was hypothesized that the SAV would be seen as a valid score that provides results comparable with those of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and the European Foot & Ankle Society (EFAS) score.

Study Design

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

Patients seen for an ankle or hindfoot tissue were divided into those treated operatively and nonoperatively. A control group of patients treated for issues outside of the foot and ankle was also created. All patients completed the SAV followed by the FAAM and the EFAS scores. Patients treated operatively completed the questionnaires before surgery and 3 months after surgery. Patients treated nonoperatively completed the questionnaires twice 15 days apart. The correlation between the SAV score, the FAAM score, and the EFAS score was estimated with the Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results

A total of 209 patients (79 in the operative group, 103 in the nonoperative group, and 27 in the control group) were asked to complete the questionnaire, and all were included. The test-retest reliability of the SAV was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94). No ceiling or floor effect was reported. Strong correlation was found between the SAV and the FAAM and EFAS scores. The SAV was able to discriminate patients from controls (54.18 ± 21.22 and 93.52 ± 9.589; P < .0001); however, SAV was not able to detect change from preoperative to 3 months postoperative (from 54.18 ± 21.22 to 62.53 ± 20.83; P = .44).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the SAV is correlated with existing accepted ankle PROMs. Further work with this PROM is needed to validate the questionnaire.