Comparison of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease with Flat-Panel Detectors on Mobile C-arm versus Fixed Systems.

BACKGROUND

Flat-panel detectors on mobile C-arm (MC-arm) systems are currently challenging fixed C-arm (FC-arm) systems used in hybrid operating rooms. MC-arm systems offer an alternative to FC-arm systems in the endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) but their efficiency has not been evaluated comparatively.

METHODS

Two series of patients undergoing arteriography with intention to treat were included. Each series consisted of 2 nonrandomized groups: an MC-arm group and an FC-arm group. Series 1 evaluated exposure to the patient (MC-arm, n = 113; FC-arm, n = 206) while series 2 evaluated exposure to patients and also health care personnel (MC-arm, n = 24; FC-arm, n = 76). The primary end points for evaluating exposure were air kerma (AK, in mGy) for patients and effective dose for health care personnel (in μSv).

RESULTS

After adjustment for the effect of body mass index (analysis of covariance test), AK was found to be lower in the MC-arm group than in the FC-arm group (124.1 ± 142 vs. 173.3 ± 248.7, P = 0.025). There was no difference between the groups with regard to effective dose recorded for senior surgeons or for operating room nurses. However, a higher effective dose was recorded by the MC-arm group external dosimeter for the trainee resident and for nurse anesthetists.

CONCLUSIONS

In endovascular treatment of lower limb PAD, use of an FC-arm system is associated with more radiation exposure to the patient than an MC-arm system. However, this type of imaging system does not appear to affect exposure to health care personnel.