BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 906-912
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/72629938

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Geijer, H
Right arrow Articles by Beckman, K-W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Geijer, H
Right arrow Articles by Beckman, K-W

Full Paper

Radiation exposure in stent-grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms

H Geijer, MD, PhD, BA1, T Larzon, MD2, R Popek, MD1 and K-W Beckman, MSc3

Departments of 1 Radiology, 2 Vascular Surgery and 3 Medical Physics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, SE-70185 Sweden

In recent years, endovascular stent-grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms has become more and more common. The radiation dose associated with these procedures is not well documented however. The aim of the present study was to estimate the radiation exposure and to simulate the effects of a switch from C-arm radiographic equipment to a dedicated angiographic suite. Dose–area product (DAP) was recorded for 24 aortic stent-grafting procedures. Based on these data, entrance surface dose (ESD) and effective dose were calculated. A simulation of doses at various settings was also performed using a humanoid Alderson phantom. The image quality was evaluated with a CDRAD contrast-detail phantom. The mean DAP was 72.3 Gy cm2 at 28 min fluoroscopy time with a mean ESD of 0.39 Gy and a mean effective dose of 10.5 mSv. If the procedures had been performed in an angiographic suite, all dose values would be much higher with a mean ESD of 2.9 Gy with 16 patients exceeding 2 Gy, which is considered to be a threshold for possible skin injury. The image quality for fluoroscopy was superior for the C-arm whilst the angiographic unit gave better acquisition images. Using a C-arm unit resulted in doses similar to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). If the same patients had been treated using dedicated angiographic equipment, the risk of skin injury would be much higher. It is thus important to be aware of the dose output of the equipment that is used.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.