Typical air kerma area product values for trauma orthopaedic surgical procedures

Damijan Skrk; Katja Petek; Dean Pekarovic; Nejc Mekis

Otwarty dostęp

Typical air kerma area product values for trauma orthopaedic surgical procedures

oraz

| 12 sty 2021

Radiology and Oncology

Tom 55 (2021): Zeszyt 2 (June 2021)

O artykule

Poprzedni artykuł

Następny artykuł

Zacytuj

Udostępnij

Article Category: Research Article

Data publikacji: 12 sty 2021

Zakres stron: 240 - 246

Otrzymano: 12 cze 2020

Przyjęty: 28 wrz 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0066

© 2021 Damijan Skrk, Katja Petek, Dean Pekarovic, Nejc Mekis, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Distribution of kerma area product (KAP) data (minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum) for 40 dynamic hip screw fixations (DHS), 23 proximal femoral nail insertions (PFN), 20 proximal humeral nail insertions (PHN), 77 partial hip endoprosthesis implantations utilizing flat panel detector (FPD) (22) and image intensifier (II) (55) for fluoroscopically guidance and 39 percutaneous posterior spine fixations (PPS) utilizing FPD (21) and II (18) for fluoroscopically guidance.

Statistical data of patient body weight, KAP and fluoroscopy screening time for 40 DHS fixations, 23 PFN insertions, 20 PHN insertions, 77 PEP implantations utilizing FPD (22) and II (55) for fluoroscopically guidance and 39 PPS fixations utilizing FPD (21) and II (18) for fluoroscopically guidance

	Min	Q1	Median	Average ± SD	Q3	Max
DYNAMIC HIP SCREW FIXATIONS (DHS)
BW [kg]	60		70	72 ± 9		90
KAP(FPD)[Gycm²]	0.13	0.29	0.52	0.71 ± 0.56	1.07	2.37
FT [s]	17		43	46 ± 20		96
PROXIMAL FEMORAL NAIL INSERTIONS (PFN)
BW [kg]	60		70	73 ± 9		90
KAP(FPD)[Gycm²]	0.13	0.34	0.53	0.60 ± 0.34	0.74	1.37
FT [s]	26		45	48 ± 18		96
PROXIMAL HUMERAL NAIL INSERTIONS (PHN)
BW [kg]	60		80	78 ± 8		90
KAP(II) [Gycm²]	0.11	0.16	0.26	0.28 ± 0.14	0.41	0.53
FT [s]	19		55.5	66.7 ± 37.9		175
PARTIAL HIP ENDOPROSTHESIS IMPLANTATIONS (PEP)
BW(FPD) [kg]	60		77.5	76 ± 7		90
BW(II) [kg]	60		80	78 ± 7		90
KAP(FPD)[Gycm²]	0.03	0.04	0.08	0.12 ± 0.09	0.17	0.33
KAP(II)[Gycm²]	0.04	0.13	0.21	0.24 ± 0.14	0.31	0.60
FT(FPD) [s]	1.0		3.0	4.0 ± 3.6		19.0
FT(II) [s]	1.0		5.0	6.9 ± 4.4		21.0
PERCUTANEOUS POSTERIOR SPINE FIXATIONS (PPS)
BW(FPD) [kg]	60		75	75 ± 6		90
BW(II) [kg]	60		75	76 ± 10		90
KAP(FPD)[Gycm²]	0.52	0.91	1.26	1.44 ± 0.74	1.63	3.21
KAP(II) [Gycm²]	1.53	2.80	3.98	4.12 ± 1.69	5.53	6.65
FT(FPD) [s]	28		71	80 ± 40		182
FT(II) [s]	42		110	115 ± 54		215

Comparison of percutaneous posterior spine fixations (PPS) exposure parameters using flat panel detectors (FPD) and image intensifier (II) technology for fluoroscopy guidance

PERCUTANEOUS POSTERIOR SPINE FIXATIONS	Median KAP (Gycm²)	Average KAP (Gycm²)	Median FT (s)	Average FT (s)	BW (kg)
Our study - FPD	1.26	1.44	71	80	75
Our study - II	3.98	4.12	110	115	78
Roux et al., (2011)8	/	10.35	/	158	/

Comparison of proximal femoral nail insertions (PFN) median and average kerma area product (KAP) values and average fluoroscopic screening time (FT) with literature

PROXIMAL FEMORAL NAIL INSERTIONS (PFN)	Median KAP (Gycm²)	Average KAP (Gycm²)	Average FT (s)	BW (kg)
Our study	0.53	0.60	48	73
Roux et al. (2011)8	/	0.79	32	/
Pillai and Jain (2004)9	0.69	/	34	/
Salvia et al. (2011)10	/	/	60	/

Comparison of diagnostic reference levels (DRL) with literature - dynamic hip screw fixations (DHS)

DYNAMIC HIP SCREW FIXATIONS (DHS)	Median KAP (Gycm²)	Average KAP (Gycm²)	Median FT (s)	Average FT (s)	BW (kg)
Our study	0.52	0.71	43	45.6	73
Hardman et al., (2015)6 1. hospital	/	0.65		46.1	70
Hardman et al., (2015)6 2. hospital	/	1.01		55.3	70
Hardman et al., (2015)6 3. hospital	/	3.94		92.4	70
Hardman et al., (2015)6 4. hospital	/	1.24		61.5	70
Hardman et al., (2015)6 – all	/	1.57		60.4	70
Rashid et al., (2017)7	0.67		36

Comparison of proximal humeral nail insertions (PHN) average fluoroscopic screening time (FT) with literature

PROXIMAL HUMERAL NAIL INSERTIONS	Median KAP (Gycm²)	Average KAP (Gycm²)	Average FT (s)	BW (kg)
Our study	0.26	0.28	67	75
Salvia et al., (2011)10	/	/	42	/

Comparison of partial hip endoprosthesis implantations (PEP) exposure parameters using flat panel detectors (FPD) and image intensifier technology for fluoroscopy guidance

PARTIAL HIP ENDOPROSTHESIS IMPLANTATIONS	Median KAP (Gycm²)	Average KAP (Gycm²)	Median FT (s)	Average FT (s)	BW (kg)
Our research – FPD	0.08	0.12	3.0	4.0	75.7
Our research - II	0.21	0.24	5.0	6.9	77.7

eISSN:: 1581-3207
Język:: Angielski

Częstotliwość wydawania:: 4 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:: Medicine, Clinical Medicine, Internal Medicine, Haematology, Oncology, Radiology

Kanał RSS czasopisma

Typical air kerma area product values for trauma orthopaedic surgical procedures

Article Category: Research Article

Data publikacji: 12 sty 2021

Zakres stron: 240 - 246

Otrzymano: 12 cze 2020

Przyjęty: 28 wrz 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0066

© 2021 Damijan Skrk, Katja Petek, Dean Pekarovic, Nejc Mekis, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1

Statistical data of patient body weight, KAP and fluoroscopy screening time for 40 DHS fixations, 23 PFN insertions, 20 PHN insertions, 77 PEP implantations utilizing FPD (22) and II (55) for fluoroscopically guidance and 39 PPS fixations utilizing FPD (21) and II (18) for fluoroscopically guidance

Comparison of percutaneous posterior spine fixations (PPS) exposure parameters using flat panel detectors (FPD) and image intensifier (II) technology for fluoroscopy guidance

Comparison of proximal femoral nail insertions (PFN) median and average kerma area product (KAP) values and average fluoroscopic screening time (FT) with literature

Comparison of diagnostic reference levels (DRL) with literature - dynamic hip screw fixations (DHS)

Comparison of proximal humeral nail insertions (PHN) average fluoroscopic screening time (FT) with literature

Comparison of partial hip endoprosthesis implantations (PEP) exposure parameters using flat panel detectors (FPD) and image intensifier technology for fluoroscopy guidance