Journal of vascular surgery · 2009
Radiation burden of patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kalef-Ezra John A, Karavasilis Stratos, Ziogas Dimosthenis, Dristiliaris Dimitris, Michalis Lampros K, Matsagas Miltiadis
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) requires the patient's extended exposure to x-rays, before, during, and after the intervention. The aim of this study was to determine the radiation exposure of patients undergoing EVAR and to assess the probability for the induction of both late and early radiation-related effects.
METHODS: During the period of May 2006 to December 2007 EVAR was carried out in 62 patients using a mobile C-arm unit. The following dosimetric quantities were assessed: fluoroscopy time, cumulative dose in air, dose-area product, field area, and peak skin dose.
RESULTS: The duration of fluoroscopy and the body mass index were found to be the main factors that influence the radiation burden in our hospital. The mean effective dose per procedure, 6.2 mSv, was between that from a planar coronary angiography and a coronary angioplasty. Taking into account the computed tomography (CT) procedure-related angiographies carried out during the first year, patients receive a total effective dose of about 62 mSv within the first year. In vivo dosimetry showed that the peak skin dose was linearly correlated with cumulative dose in air and did not exceed 1.0 Gy, ie, it was less than the threshold for any acute skin reaction.
CONCLUSION: Repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm results in substantial radiation burden. Radiation-related risks for carcinogenesis and skin injuries are factors that have to be taken into account in the selection of the strategy of each facility.
METHODS: During the period of May 2006 to December 2007 EVAR was carried out in 62 patients using a mobile C-arm unit. The following dosimetric quantities were assessed: fluoroscopy time, cumulative dose in air, dose-area product, field area, and peak skin dose.
RESULTS: The duration of fluoroscopy and the body mass index were found to be the main factors that influence the radiation burden in our hospital. The mean effective dose per procedure, 6.2 mSv, was between that from a planar coronary angiography and a coronary angioplasty. Taking into account the computed tomography (CT) procedure-related angiographies carried out during the first year, patients receive a total effective dose of about 62 mSv within the first year. In vivo dosimetry showed that the peak skin dose was linearly correlated with cumulative dose in air and did not exceed 1.0 Gy, ie, it was less than the threshold for any acute skin reaction.
CONCLUSION: Repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm results in substantial radiation burden. Radiation-related risks for carcinogenesis and skin injuries are factors that have to be taken into account in the selection of the strategy of each facility.