ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Real-time dosimetry in interventional radiology - comparing the occupational radiation exposure in fluoroscopy-guided lower extremity and abdominal procedures.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- XACT-guided interventional procedures: A feasibility study.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Safer fluoroscopy guided femoral access using a passive robotic support with a 3D printed needle and guidewire inserter.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRadiation safety concerns have spurred the development of real-time dosimetry systems. This study investigated the occupational dose exposure of interventional radiologists during lower extremity and abdominal procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsReal-time dosimetry was performed during 102 consecutive interventions (51 lower extremity, 51 abdominal). Radiation protection measures included protective glasses (lead equivalent 0.5 mm), thyroid shielding (0.5 mm), vests (0.35 mm), aprons (0.25 mm), as well as movable acrylic and table shields (both 0.5 mm) during all procedures. Dosimeters were attached to the interventionalist's glasses on the side of the x-ray tube, to the back of the supporting hand, and under the vest. Using standardized values over time to account for exposure time differences between interventions, dose-area products and the dose equivalent H
resultsLower extremity angiographies were associated with a substantially lower median dose-area product (5.3 vs. 51.4 Gy × cm
conclusionReal-time dosimetry confirmed sufficient radiation protection with the application of dedicated safety measures, even in dose-intensive abdominal procedures. Interventionalists' supporting hands are subjected to the highest radiation exposure, followed by the cranium/eye lens and the body trunk. KEY POINTS: Question Active dosimetry facilitates real-time assessment of radiation exposure in different measurement sites, but a multi-dosimeter setup has not been explored for interventional radiology so far. Findings Occupational radiation exposure is considerably higher in abdominal than in lower extremity procedures. Interventionalists' supporting hands receive the highest dose equivalents regardless of procedure type. Clinical relevance Dose monitoring in real time is key to understanding the radiation burden of different anatomical features during image-guided interventions. Especially in dose-intensive abdominal procedures, protective measures are essential to minimize the occupational radiation exposure of the interventionalist.
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.