4.1 Article

Comparing Radiation Dose from Conventional Fluoroscopy to Intraoperative Cone Beam CT (O-arm) during Percutaneous Lesioning Procedures of the Gasserian Ganglion

期刊

CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.345

关键词

trigeminal neuralgia; cone beam ct; radiation dose; fluoroscopy; percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The use of intraoperative CT-guidance during the percutaneous treatment of trigeminal neuralgia has become increasingly popular due to the greater ease of foramen ovale cannulation and decreased procedure times. Concerns regarding radiation dose to the patient, however, remain unaddressed. We sought to compare the emitted radiation dose from fluoroscopy with intraoperative CT for these procedures. Methods: A retrospective review of percutaneous lesioning procedures for trigeminal neuralgia performed between 2010 until 2012 at our institution was conducted and radiation doses to the patient were recorded. We subsequently simulated four separate percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomies using the O-arm intraoperative CT (Medtronics, Minneapolis, MN, USA) to cannulate the foramen ovale bilaterally in two formalin-fixed cadaver heads. Results: Seventeen successful percutaneous treatments for trigeminal neuralgia were performed during the study period. Eleven procedures containing complete records were included in the final analysis. For procedures using fluoroscopy, the mean dosage was 15.2 mGys (range: 1.15 - 47.95, 95% CI 7.34 - 22.99). Radiation dosage from the O-arm imaging system was 16.55 mGy for all four cases. An unequal variance t-test did not reach statistical significance (p=0.42). Conclusions: We did not observe a significant difference in radiation dose delivered to subjects when comparing CT-guided foramen ovale cannulation relative to fluoroscopy for percutaneous lesioning of the Gasserian ganglion. Additional study is required under operational settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据