ArticleJournal of children's orthopaedics2018
Intraoperative 2D C-arm and 3D O-arm in children: a comparative phantom study.
Article in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigated Cementoplasty With O-Arm and Surgivisio: An Ambispective Comparison With Radiation Exposure.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of Navigated Expandable Vertebral Cage with Conventional Expandable Vertebral Cage for Minimally Invasive Lumbar/Thoracolumbar Corpectomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Simultaneous Single-Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-arm Navigated Technique for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Irradiation level related to intraoperative imaging device in paediatric elastic stable intramedullary nailing: preliminary prospective study on 51 patients using PCXMC software.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeExposure to ionizing radiation is a concern for children during intraoperative imaging. We aimed to assess the radiation exposure to the paediatric patient with 2D and 3D imaging.
methodsTo evaluate the radiation exposure, patient absorbed doses to the organs were measured in an anthropomorphic phantom representing a five-year-old child, using thermoluminescent dosimeters. For comparative purposes, organ doses were measured using a C-arm for one minute of fluoroscopy and one acquisition with an O-arm. The cone-beam was centred on the pelvis. Direct and scattered irradiations were measured and compared (Student's
resultsAll radiation doses were expressed in µGy. Direct radiation doses of pelvic organs were between 631.22 and 1691.87 for the O-arm and between 214.08 and 737.51 for the C-arm, and were not significant (p = 0.07). Close scattered radiation on abdominal organs were between 25.11 and 114.85 for the O-arm and between 8.03 and 55.34 for the C-arm, and were not significant (p = 0.07). Far scattered radiation doses on thorax, neck and head varied from 0.86 to 6.42 for the O-arm and from 0.04 to 3.08 for the C-arm, and were significant (p = 0.02). The dose rate at the skin entrance was 328.58 µGy.s
conclusionDuring imaging of the pelvis, absorbed doses for a 3D O-arm acquisition were higher than with one minute fluoroscopy with the C-arm. Further clinical studies comparing effective doses are needed to assess ionizing risks of the intraoperative imaging systems in children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.