British Journal of Urology · 2019 · 12 citations · 25 references
MedicineSurgeryUrologyRadiation DosimetryRadiation ProtectionRadiation SafetyEquivalent DosePatient Radiation SafetyPatient-specific DosimetryRadiation Dose MeasurementRadiation Risk AssessmentRadiation TherapyDosimetry In Interventional ProceduresExternal Radiation ExposureIntraoperative Radiation TherapyMedical Imaging Radiation DosePercutaneous Nephrolithotomy ComparisonProcedure-related Radiation SafetyRadiation Dose AssessmentReference Exposure Levels
Objectives To define reference levels for intraoperative radiation during stent insertion, ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy ( PCNL ); to identify variation in radiation exposure between individual hospitals across the UK , between low‐ and high‐volume PCNL centres, and between grade of lead surgeon. Patients/Subjects and Methods In all, 3651 patients were identified retrospectively across 12 UK hospitals over a 1‐year period. Radiation exposure was defined in terms of total fluoroscopy time ( FT ) and dose area product ( DAP ). The 75th percentiles of median values for each hospital were used to define reference levels for each procedure. Results Reference levels: ureteric stent insertion/replacement (DAP, 2.3 Gy/cm 2 ; FT, 49 s); URS (DAP, 2.8 Gy/cm 2 ; FT, 57 s); PCNL (DAP, 24.1 Gy/cm 2 ; FT, 431 s). Significant variations in the median DAP and FT were identified between individual centres for all procedures ( P < 0.001). For PCNL , there was a statistically significant difference between DAP for low‐ (<50 cases/annum) and high‐volume centres (>50 cases/annum), at a median DAP of 15.0 Gy/cm 2 vs 4.2 Gy/cm 2 ( P < 0.001). For stent procedures, the median DAP and FT differed significantly between grade of lead surgeon: Consultant ( DAP, 2.17 Gy/cm 2 ; FT, 41 s) vs Registrar ( DAP, 1.38 Gy/cm 2 ; FT, 26 s; P < 0.001). Conclusion This multicentre study is the largest of its kind. It provides the first national reference level to guide fluoroscopy use in urological procedures, thereby adding a quantitative and objective value to complement the principles of keeping radiation exposure ‘as low as reasonably achievable’. This snapshot of real‐time data shows significant variation around the country, as well as significant differences between low‐ and high‐volume centres for PCNL, and grade of lead surgeon for stent procedures.
25
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki
JAMA · 2013 · 29.4K citations
Solid Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–1998
Dale L. Preston, Elaine Ron, Shoji Tokuoka et al. · Radiation Research · 2007 · 1.7K citations
Benefits and costs, an eternal balance
Adrian K. Dixon · Annals of the ICRP · 2007 · 1.4K citations
ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging
E. Vañó, D.L. Miller, C J Martin et al. · Annals of the ICRP · 2017 · 981 citations