PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy, safety, and diagnostic outcome of fluoroscopic guided and CT transpedicular biopsy techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial.
PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty consecutive patients with clinical symptoms and radiological features suggestive of spinal infection or malignancy were recruited and randomized into fluoroscopic or CT guided spinal biopsy groups. Both groups were similar in terms of patient demographics, distribution of spinal infections and malignancy cases, and the level of biopsies.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of both methods, determined based on true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative biopsy findings. Secondary outcome measures included radiation exposure to patients and doctors, complications, and postbiopsy pain score.
METHODS: A transpedicular approach was performed with an 8G core biopsy needle. Specimens were sent for histopathological and microbiological examinations. Diagnosis was made based on biopsy results, clinical criteria and monitoring of disease progression during a 6-month follow up duration. Clinical criteria included presence of risk factors, level of inflammatory markers and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Radiation exposure to patients and doctors was measured with dosimeters.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of fluoroscopic and CT guided spinal biopsy (p=0.67) or between the diagnostic accuracy of spinal infection and spinal tumor in both groups (p=0.402 for fluoroscopy group and p=0.223 for CT group). Radiation exposure to patients was approximately 26 times higher in the CT group. Radiation exposure to doctors in the CT group was approximately 2 times higher compared to the fluoroscopic group if a lead shield was not used. Lead shields significantly reduced radiation exposure to doctors anywhere from 2 to 8 times. No complications were observed for either group and the differences in postbiopsy pain scores were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy, procedure time, complication rate and pain score for both groups were similar. However, radiation exposure to patients and doctors were significantly higher in the CT group without lead protection. With lead protection, radiation to doctors reduced significantly.
METHODS: All relevant studies were identified through keyword searches in electronic databases from inception until September 2020. The searched publications were reviewed, categorised and analysed based on their respective methodology.
RESULTS: Hundred and one publications were identified which utilised existing MC-based applications/programs or customised MC simulations. Two outstanding challenges were identified that contribute to uncertainties in the virtual simulation reconstruction. The first challenge involves the use of anatomical models to represent individuals. Currently, phantom libraries best balance the needs of clinical practicality with those of specificity. However, mismatches of anatomical variations including body size and organ shape can create significant discrepancies in dose estimations. The second challenge is that the exact positioning of the patient relative to the beam is generally unknown. Most dose prediction models assume the patient is located centrally on the examination couch, which can lead to significant errors.
CONCLUSION: The continuing rise of computing power suggests a near future where MC methods become practical for routine clinical dosimetry. Dynamic, deformable phantoms help to improve patient specificity, but at present are only limited to adjustment of gross body volume. Dynamic internal organ displacement or reshaping is likely the next logical frontier. Image-based alignment is probably the most promising solution to enable this, but it must be automated to be clinically practical.
METHODS: We scrutinized the routine radiological exposure parameters during 58 clinical neuro-interventional procedures such as, exposure direction, magnification, frame rate, and distance between image receptor to patient's body and evaluate their effects on patient's dose using an anthropomorphic phantom. Radiation dose received by the occipital region, ears and eyes of the phantom were measured using MOSkin detectors.
RESULTS: DSA imaging technique is a major contributor to patient's dose (80.9%) even though they are used sparingly (5.3% of total frame number). The occipital region of the brain received high dose largely from the frontal tube constantly placed under couch (73.7% of the total KAP). When rotating the frontal tube away from under the couch, the radiation dose to the occipital reduced by 40%. The use of magnification modes could increase radiation dose by 94%. Changing the image receptor to the phantom surface distance from 10 to 40cm doubled the radiation dose received by the patient's skin at the occipital region.
CONCLUSION: Our findings provided important insights into the contribution of selected fluoroscopic exposure parameters and their impact on patient's dose during neuro-interventional radiology procedures. This study showed that the DSA imaging technique contributed to the highest patient's dose and judicial use of exposure parameters might assist interventional radiologists in effective skin and eye lens dose reduction for patients undergoing neuro-interventional procedures.
METHODS: 41 medical personnel performing 79 procedures were monitored for their eye lens exposure using the NanoDot™ optically-stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) taped to the outer canthus of their eyes. The air-kerma area product (KAP), fluoroscopy time (FT) and number of procedure runs were also recorded.
RESULTS: KAP, FT and number of runs were strongly correlated. However, only weak to moderate correlations were observed between these parameters with the measured eye lens doses. The average median equivalent eye lens dose was 0.052 mSv (ranging from 0.0155 to 0.672 mSv). The eye lens doses of primary operators were found to be significantly higher than their assistants due to the closer proximity to the patient and X-ray tube. The left eye lens of the operators received the highest amount of radiation due to their habitual positioning towards the radiation source.
CONCLUSION: KAP and FT were not useful in predicting the equivalent eye lens dose exposure in interventional radiological procedures. Direct in vivo measurements were needed to provide a better estimate of the eye lens doses received by medical personnel during these procedures. This study highlights the importance of using direct measurement, such as OSLDs, instead of just indirect factors to monitor dose in the eye lens in radiological procedures.