4.5 Article

CT-guided interventional procedures without CT fluoroscopy assistance: Patient effective dose and absorbed dose considerations

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 188, 期 6, 页码 1479-1484

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.0705

关键词

biopsy; CT; interventional radiology; radiation dose; radiofrequency ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine patient effective dose ( E) and peak absorbed dose to the skin of the patient from various CT-guided interventional procedures performed without CT fluoroscopy assistance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In total, 49 interventions were retrospectively studied: 14 biopsies, 14 radiofrequency ablations, 14 abscess drainages, and seven nephrostomies. CT images were acquired from the department's PACS system and reviewed to record the scan parameters of each slice. Entrance surface dose and E were estimated using the Impactscan database and the related Monte Carlo conversion coefficients. RESULTS. Median values of E for biopsies, radiofrequency ablations, abscess drainages, and nephrostomies were 23, 35.3, 16.2, and 11.5 mSv, respectively. Respective ranges were 5.8-46.6, 18.4-57.2, 10.9-31.5, and 5.1-32.7 mSv. The corresponding median values and ranges for the peak absorbed dose were 281, 557, 155, and 145 mGy and 133-982, 147-699, 94-315, and 75-297 mGy. The diagnostic scans obtained before the interventions were responsible for 63%, 33% 40%, and 51% of E, respectively. The largest contribution to the peak absorbed dose was due to positioning of the tissue acquisition biopsy gun in biopsies ( 48%), the radiofrequency needle in ablations ( 57%), and the catheter in abscess drainages ( 41%) and nephrostomies ( 49%). CONCLUSION. For the CT interventions studied, and especially for biopsies and radiofrequency ablations, patient effective doses were considerably high. Maximum peak absorbed dose observed was about 1 Gy, considerably lower than the threshold for deterministic effects ( 2 Gy).

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

4.5
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