ArticleJournal of neuroendovascular therapy2026
Optimization of Patient Skin Dose by C-Arm Angulation in Interventional Radiology for Spinal Vascular Lesions.
Article in Journal of neuroendovascular therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Accurate assessment of a patient's skin dose during interventional radiology (IVR) for spinal vascular lesions is challenging, particularly when the upper arms are positioned within the irradiation field. This study aimed to quantify the discrepancy between system-displayed dose values and actual skin dose, while assessing the impact of C-arm angulation on patient skin dose during spinal IVR. Methods: Dosimetric measurements were performed using an adult anthropomorphic phantom. A 0.6-cc CT ionization chamber was positioned on the phantom surface at the center of the lateral C-arm irradiation field. Fluoroscopic irradiation was performed for 1 min at right anterior oblique (RAO) angulations ranging from 40° to 120° in 10° increments using a biplane angiography system. The measured skin dose was compared against the system-displayed reference air kerma at the patient reference point. Measurements were performed in triplicate and evaluated across 3 anatomical regions: the upper thoracic region (including the upper arms), lower thoracic region (excluding the upper arms), and lumbar region. Air kerma was used as a surrogate for skin dose. Results: The measured skin dose exceeded the system-displayed dose in all anatomical regions, with the most significant discrepancy observed in the upper thoracic region. At RAO 90°, which corresponds to a true lateral projection, the measured skin dose in the upper thoracic region was 1.68 times higher than the system-displayed dose. Conversely, smaller discrepancies were observed in the lower thoracic and lumbar regions, and the measured doses were 1.17 and 1.18 times higher than the displayed values, respectively. Modifying the C-arm angulation by 20° from RAO 90° significantly reduced the measured skin dose in the upper thoracic region, with reductions of 77.9% and 85.4% at RAO 70° and 110°, respectively. However, even with these optimizations, the measured skin dose remained 1.42 times higher than the system-displayed dose. Conclusion: During spinal IVR, particularly in the lateral projections of the upper thoracic spine, system-displayed dose may substantially underestimate actual patient skin dose when the upper arms are included within the irradiation field. This discrepancy likely reflects increased X-ray tube output driven by automatic dose control in response to elevated tissue attenuation. Optimizing the C-arm angulation represents a practical and effective strategy for reducing patient skin dose in this anatomically challenging region.
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.