Radiation Exposure in Total Ankle Replacement

Abstract

Background:

Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging procedures is associated with increased cancer risk. No published data currently exist regarding ionizing radiation exposure in total ankle replacement surgery. This study quantified intraoperative fluoroscopic dose and duration during ankle replacement surgery and examined patient and technical factors affecting the level of exposure.

Methods:

Fifty-five patients underwent ankle replacement using STAR, Salto-Talaris, or INBONE total ankles. Intraoperative fluoroscopic dose and duration, patient demographics, implant design, and accompanying additional procedures were documented for each case. The relationship between each relevant variable and radiation dose and time was determined.

Results:

The mean fluoroscopic dose and duration for all cases were 1.15 ± 0.84 milliGray per case and 77 ± 34 seconds per case, respectively. There was a positive correlation between the absorbed radiation dose and the duration of fluoroscopy (r = .50, P < .001). The mean fluoroscopic doses were 1.53 milliGray, 0.99 milliGray, and 0.88 milliGray for INBONE, STAR, and Salto-Talaris prostheses, respectively. Fluoroscopic dose was significantly influenced by implant design (P = .035), with implants using an intramedullary referencing guide associated with higher radiation doses. After excluding cases requiring additional procedures, the fluoroscopic time and radiation dose associated with intramedullary referencing guide implants continued to exceed those of the other implants, but the differences were no longer statistically significant (P = .22, P = .09, respectively).

Conclusion:

The average patient radiation dose during total ankle replacement was approximately one-fifth the recommended maximum yearly radiation exposure. The radiation dose was positively associated with fluoroscopy duration. Among factors controllable by the surgeon, selection of an implant with an extramedullary alignment system and conscious effort to minimize duration of fluoroscopy can reduce harmful radiation exposure and decrease cancer risk in total ankle replacement patients and associated operating room personnel.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, comparative series.

Keywords

ankle arthroplasty radiation fluoroscopy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bacher

Smeets

Bonnarens

. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(4):923-929.

Badman

Rill

Butkovich

Arreola

Griend

. Radiation exposure with use of the mini-C-arm for routine orthopaedic imaging procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(1):13-17.

Fazel

Krumholz

Wang

. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(9):849-857.

Furlow

. Radiation dose in computed tomography. Radiol Technol. 2010;81(5):437-450.

Hall

Brenner

. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(965):362-378.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation safety aspects of brachytherapy for prostate cancer using permanently implanted sources. ICRP Publication 98. Ann ICRP. 2005;35(3):iii-vi, 3-50.

Kesavachandran

Haamann

Nienhaus

. Radiation exposure of eyes, thyroid gland and hands in orthopaedic staff: a systematic review. Eur J Med Res. 2012;17:28. doi:10.1186/2047-783X-17-28.

Larson

Egbert

Goble

. Radiation exposure during fluoroarthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(4):462-464.

Levin

Schoen

Jr Browner

. Radiation exposure to the surgeon during closed interlocking intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(5):761-766.

10.

Madan

Blakeway

. Radiation exposure to surgeon and patient in intramedullary nailing of the lower limb. Injury. 2002;33:723-727.

11.

Mahesh

. Fluoroscopy: patient radiation exposure issues. Radiographics. 2001;21(4):1033-1045.

12.

Mehlman

DiPasquale

. Radiation exposure to the orthopaedic surgical team during fluoroscopy: how far is far enough? J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11(6):392-398.

13.

Miller

Davis

MacClean

. Radiation exposure and associated risks to operating-room personnel during use of fluoroscopic guidance for selected orthopaedic surgical procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(1):1-4.

14.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Protection for Medical and Allied Health Personnel. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2007.

15.

Norris

. Radiation safety in fluoroscopy. Radiol Technol. 2002;73(6):511-533.

16.

Pijpe

Andrieu

Easton

. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). BMJ. 2012;345:e5660. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5660.

17.

Rampersaud

Foley

Shen

Williams

Solomito

. Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(20):2637-2645.

18.

Riley

. Radiation exposure from fluoroscopy during orthopedic surgical procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:257-260.

19.

Sanders

Koval

DiPasquale

. Exposure of the orthopaedic surgeon to radiation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(3):326-330.

20.

Scaife

Rollins

. Managing radiation risk in the evaluation of the pediatric trauma patient. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2010;19(4):252-256.

21.

Suibnugarn

Mahaisavariya

Sirichatvapee

. Radiation exposure during closed femoral nailing. J ASEAN Orthop Assoc. 1990;4:87-88.

22.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Biological effects of radiation. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2012.