Analysis of intraoperative radiation use in vascular surgery: Catalyst for quality improvement in patient and personnel safety

Abstract

Objectives

There is paucity in the literature reporting radiation usage analysis in vascular surgery. In the era of endovascular surgeries, analyzing the surgeons’ use of radiation in vascular procedures can help establish quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

A retrospective review was undertaken of intraoperative fluoroscopic-guided vascular surgery procedures at a single institution from 2010 to 2017. Mobile C-arms were utilized to gather the six radiation usage metrics and cases were categorized into 6 anatomic surgical fields and 10 surgical procedure types.

Results

Three hundred and eighteen vascular surgery cases were analyzed and notable trends in all radiation usage metrics were identified both across the surgical field location and type of surgical procedure. The highest cumulative dose was identified in embolization cases with a mean of 932.5 mGy. The highest fluoroscopic time was seen in atherectomies with a mean of 2629.6 s. In terms of surgical field, the highest cumulative does and fluoroscopic time was identified in abdomen/pelvis procedures with a mean of 352.1 mGy and 1186.8 s, respectively. Analysis of dose reduction techniques also demonstrated notable trends.

Conclusions

There were notable trends in the analyzed radiation usage variables both across the surgical field location and type of surgical procedure. Specifically, cases that involve the abdomen/pelvis, embolization and atherectomy have the highest radiation use. These types of cases can be targeted for future improved dose reduction techniques or staged procedures. This data can serve as baseline information for future quality improvement initiatives for patient and personnel radiation exposure safety.

Keywords

Patient safety quality improvement radiation dose

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Gelijns

Moskowitz

et al . Understanding trends in inpatient surgical volume: vascular interventions, 1980-2000. J Vasc Surg 2004; 39: 1200–1208.

Perera

Lyden

SP.

Current trends in lower extremity revascularization. Surg Clin North Am 2007; 87: 1135–1147.

Blankensteijn

de Jong Seca Prinssen

et al . Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2398–2405.

Prinssen

Verhoeven

ELG

Buth

et al . A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1607–1618.

Bannazadeh

Altinel

Kashyap

et al . Patterns of procedure-specific radiation exposure in the endovascular era: impetus for further innovation. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49: 1520–1524.

Goodney

Beck

Nagle

et al . National trends in lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions, and major amputations. J Vasc Surg 2009; 50: 54–60.

Shope

TB.

Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy. Radiographics 1996; 16: 1195–1199.

Wagner

Eifel

Geise

RA.

Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994; 5: 71–84.

Hirshfeld

Balter

Brinker

et al . ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 2259–2282.

10.

Koenig

Mettler

Wagner

LK.

Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 2, review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 13–20.

11.

Brenner

Hall

EJ.

Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277–2284.

12.

D’ercole

Mantovani

Thyrion

et al . A study on maximum skin dose in cerebral embolization procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 503–507.

13.

Einstein

Moser

Thompson

et al . Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007; 116: 1290–1305.

14.

Geijer

Larzon

Popek

et al . Radiation exposure in stent-grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 906–912.

15.

Cheng

SWK

et al . Ionizing radiation absorption of vascular surgeons during endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46: 455–459.

16.

Lipsitz

Veith

Ohki

et al . Does the endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms pose a radiation safety hazard to vascular surgeons? J Vasc Surg 2000; 32: 704–710.

17.

Zorzetto

Bernardi

Morocutti

et al . Radiation exposure to patients and operators during diagnostic catheterization and coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1997; 40: 348–351.

18.

Greene

Tenggadjaja

Bowman

et al . Comparison of a reduced radiation fluoroscopy protocol to conventional fluoroscopy during uncomplicated ureteroscopy. Urology 2011; 78: 286–290.

19.

Brisbane

Smith

Schlaifer

et al . Fluoro-less ureteral stent placement following uncomplicated ureteroscopic stone removal: a feasibility study. Urology 2012; 80: 766–770.

20.

Blair

Huang

Arnold

et al . Reduced fluoroscopy protocol for percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: feasibility, outcomes and effects on fluoroscopy time. J Urol 2013; 190: 2112–2116.

21.

Lee

Y-S

Lee

H-K

Cho

J-H

et al . Analysis of radiation risk to patients from intra-operative use of the mobile X-ray system (C-arm). J Res Med Sci 2015; 20: 7–12.

22.

Miller

Balter

Cole

et al . Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14: 711–727.

23.

Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Estimating with confidence. Br Med J 1988; 296: 1210–1211.

24.

Thorne

MC.

ALARA – as low as reasonably achievable radiation doses in industry. The ALARA-II meeting, 1990: (Ed. J.D. Lewins) Research Studies Press Ltd. Ann Nucl Energy 1992; 19: 52.

25.

Kendrick

Miller

Moorehead

et al . Comparative occupational radiation exposure between fixed and mobile imaging systems. J Vasc Surg 2016; 63: 190–197.

26.

Fletcher

Miller

Balter

et al . Comparison of four techniques to estimate radiation dose to skin during angiographic and interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13: 391–397.

27.

Miller

Balter

Wagner

et al . Quality improvement guidelines for recording patient radiation dose in the medical record. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004; 15: 423–429.

28.

Balter

Capturing patient doses from fluoroscopically based diagnostic and interventional systems. Health Phys 2008; 95: 535–540.

29.

Vañó

Gonzalez

Approaches to establishing reference levels in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001; 94: 109–112.

30.

Kendall

Muirhead

MacGibbon

et al . Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation: first analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. BMJ 1992; 304: 220–225.

31.

El-Sayed

Patel

Cho

et al . Radiation-induced DNA damage in operators performing endovascular aortic repair. Circulation 2017; 136: 2406–2416.