ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2022
Investigation of radiation dose around C-arm fluoroscopy and relevant cancer risk to operating room staff.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupational radiation exposure and crystalline lens density in perioperative nurses: a short communication.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Review
- The shield multicentre collaborative: A study of hand surgeons' intraoperative radiation exposure and techniques to limit dosing.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- [Detection of ionizing radiation in operating room and hospital areas].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Article
- Low-dose pulsed vs standard pulsed fluoroscopy during ERCP to reduce radiation without change in image quality: Prospective randomized study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Implementation of a Specific Set of Intraoperative C-Arm Fluoroscopy Terminologies in Percutaneous Vertebroplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the ambient dose equivalent around a C-arm device during spinal surgeries and determine the optimum locations for the surgeon and staff to keep radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable. Furthermore, cancer risk incidence was estimated using the excess relative risk (ERR) concept of the biologic effects of ionizing radiation VII report for operating room (OR) staff. A lateral projection of the C-arm setup was considered in the current study. The ambient dose equivalent rate was measured using an electronic dosimeter in 30° steps all around for 1, and 1.6-m heights as well as 1, and 2-m distances away from a water tank (scattering medium). By assuming a typical workload, the annual ambient dose and a maximum number of permissible operations were determined. For a worst-case scenario, the dose was used to estimate the ERR for various organs including prostate, ovary, breast, lung, thyroid, and colon for attained ages of 35, 40, and 50 years. The maximum ambient dose equivalent rate was seen at 330° and 30° (about 600 µSv/h at 1 m height and a distance of 1 m from the scattering medium). The corresponding permissible workload for an OR staff was about 30,660 operations. Based on the obtained results, 60° next to the image intensifier was the optimum position for the surgeon, while 30° next to the tube was the worst position because of backscattered radiation. The ERR results showed that the lung and colon have the highest cancer risk incidence among the considered organs for both males and females, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35171318What 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.