Intraoperative 2D C-arm and 3D O-arm in children: A comparative phantom study

14Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose Exposure to ionizing radiation is a concern for children during intraoperative imaging. We aimed to assess the radiation exposure to the paediatric patient with 2D and 3D imaging. Methods To evaluate the radiation exposure, patient absorbed doses to the organs were measured in an anthropomorphic phantom representing a five-year-old child, using thermoluminescent dosimeters. For comparative purposes, organ doses were measured using a C-arm for one minute of fluoroscopy and one acquisition with an O-arm. The cone- beam was centred on the pelvis. Direct and scattered irradiations were measured and compared (Student’s t-test). Skin entrance dose rates were also evaluated. Results All radiation doses were expressed in μGy. Direct radiation doses of pelvic organs were between 631.22 and 1691.87 for the O-arm and between 214.08 and 737.51 for the C-arm, and were not significant (p = 0.07). Close scattered radiation on abdominal organs were between 25.11 and 114.85 for the O-arm and between 8.03 and 55.34 for the C-arm, and were not significant (p = 0.07). Far scattered radiation doses on thorax, neck and head varied from 0.86 to 6.42 for the O-arm and from 0.04 to 3.08 for the C-arm, and were significant (p = 0.02). The dose rate at the skin entrance was 328.58 μGy.s-1 for the O-arm and 1.90 with the C-arm. Conclusion During imaging of the pelvis, absorbed doses for a 3D O-arm acquisition were higher than with one minute fluoroscopy with the C-arm. Further clinical studies compar- ing effective doses are needed to assess ionizing risks of the intraoperative imaging systems in children.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Prod’Homme, M., Sans-Merce, M., Pitteloud, N., Damet, J., & Lascombes, P. (2018). Intraoperative 2D C-arm and 3D O-arm in children: A comparative phantom study. Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics, 12(5), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1302/1863-2548.12.180016

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free