Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Vasc Surg ; 73(2): 601-607, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32473339

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is a complex procedure that generates high radiation doses. Magnification aids in vessel cannulation but increases radiation. The aim of the study was to compare radiation doses to patients and operating room staff from two fluoroscopy techniques, standard magnification vs dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming during F/B-EVAR. METHODS: An observational, prospective, single-center study of F/B-EVAR procedures using Philips Allura XperFD20 equipment (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was performed during a 42-month period. Intravascular ultrasound, three-dimensional fusion, and extreme collimation were used in all procedures. Intraoperative live-image processing was performed with two imaging systems: standard magnification in 123 patients (81%) and dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming in 28 patients (18%). In the latter, the live "processed" zoomed images are displayed on examination displays and live images are displayed on reference displays. The reference air kerma was collected for each case and represents patient dose. Operating staff personal dosimetry was collected using the DoseAware system (Philips Healthcare). Patient and staff radiation doses were compared using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Mean age was 71.6 ± 11.4 years. The median body mass index was 27 kg/m2 (interquartile range [IQR], 24.4-30.6 kg/m2) and was the same for both groups. Procedures performed with dual fluoroscopy with digital zooming demonstrated significantly lower median patient (1382 mGy [IQR, 999-2045 mGy] vs 2458 mGy [IQR, 1706-3767 mGy]; P < .01) and primary operator radiation doses (101 µSv [IQR, 34-235 µSv] vs 266 µSv [IQR, 104-583 µSv]; P < .01) compared with standard magnification. Similar significantly reduced radiation doses were recorded for first assistant, scrub nurse, and anesthesia staff in procedures performed with dual fluoroscopy. According to device design, procedures performed with four-fenestration/branch devices generated higher operator radiation doses (262 µSv [IQR, 116.5-572 µSv] vs 171 µSv [IQR, 44-325 µSv]; P < .01) compared with procedures with three or fewer fenestration/branches. Among the most complex design (four-vessel), operator radiation dose was significantly lower with digital zooming compared with standard magnification (128.5 µSv [IQR, 70.5-296 µSv] vs 309 µSv [IQR, 150-611 µSv]; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Current radiation doses to patients and operating personnel are within acceptable limits; however, dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming results in dramatically lower radiation doses compared with the standard image processing with dose-dependent magnification. Operator radiation doses were reduced in half during procedures performed with more complex device designs when digital zooming was used.


Assuntos
Aneurisma Aórtico/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese Vascular , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Exposição à Radiação/prevenção & controle , Ampliação Radiográfica , Radiografia Intervencionista , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aneurisma Aórtico/diagnóstico por imagem , Prótese Vascular , Implante de Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Implante de Prótese Vascular/instrumentação , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/instrumentação , Feminino , Fluoroscopia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Exposição Ocupacional/efeitos adversos , Saúde Ocupacional , Segurança do Paciente , Estudos Prospectivos , Exposição à Radiação/efeitos adversos , Ampliação Radiográfica/efeitos adversos , Radiografia Intervencionista/efeitos adversos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA