Pulsed Fluoroscopy in Ureteroscopy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

被引:63
作者
Elkoushy, Mohamed A. [1 ]
Shahrour, Walid [1 ]
Andonian, Sero [1 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Ctr Hlth, Dept Surg, Div Urol, Montreal, PQ H3A 1A1, Canada
关键词
RADIATION-EXPOSURE; DOSE REDUCTION; RISKS;
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.027
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of pulsed fluoroscopy (PF) at a rate of 4 frames per seconds (fps) on the total fluoroscopy time during ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). METHODS A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed for consecutive patients undergoing URS and PCNL by a single surgeon between July 2009 and July 2011. PF was routinely used in all URS procedures since January 2011 and in all PCNL procedures since November 2010. Before these dates, standard fluoroscopy (SF) at a rate of 30 fps was used. Patient and stone characteristics together with operative data were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS There were a total of 163 URS (117 SF and 46 PF) and 100 PCNL (50 SF and 50 PF). In the URS cohort, there were no significant differences between both SF and PF groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, stone location, and multiplicity (P >=.20). For both URS and PCNL cohorts, the duration of surgery and stone-free rates were comparable in both SF and PF groups (P >=.06). Compared with SF groups, patients in the PF groups were exposed to significantly less fluoroscopy during URS (109.1 vs. 44.1 sec, P <0.001) and PCNL (341.1 vs. 121.5 sec, P <0.001). These differences in mean fluoroscopy times retained their significance in multivariate analyses (P <.001). CONCLUSION The use of PF during URS and PCNL was associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time, thus reducing radiation exposure to both patients and personnel. UROLOGY 79: 1230-1235, 2012. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1230 / 1235
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   PERCEPTUAL COMPARISON OF PULSED AND CONTINUOUS FLUOROSCOPY [J].
AUFRICHTIG, R ;
XUE, P ;
THOMAS, CW ;
GILMORE, GC ;
WILSON, DL .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1994, 21 (02) :245-256
[2]   RADIATION EXPOSURE DURING URETEROSCOPY [J].
BAGLEY, DH ;
CUBLERGOODMAN, A .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1990, 144 (06) :1356-1358
[3]   Dose reduction in gastrointestinal and genitourinary fluoroscopy: Use of grid-controlled pulsed fluoroscopy [J].
Boland, GWL ;
Murphy, B ;
Arellano, R ;
Niklason, L ;
Mueller, PR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2000, 175 (05) :1453-1457
[4]   Radiation hazards in urological practice [J].
Bury, RF .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2002, 89 (06) :505-509
[5]   Comparison of a Reduced Radiation Fluoroscopy Protocol to Conventional Fluoroscopy During Uncomplicated Ureteroscopy [J].
Greene, Daniel J. ;
Tenggadjaja, Christopher F. ;
Bowman, Ryan J. ;
Agarwal, Gautum ;
Ebrahimi, Kamyar Y. ;
Baldwin, D. Duane .
UROLOGY, 2011, 78 (02) :286-290
[6]   Radiation exposure and the urologist: What are the risks? [J].
Hellawell, GO ;
Mutch, SJ ;
Thevendran, G ;
Wells, E ;
Morgan, RJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 174 (03) :948-952
[7]   Science to practice: Can fluoroscopic radiation dose be substantially reduced? [J].
Hernanz-Schulman, M .
RADIOLOGY, 2006, 238 (01) :1-2
[8]  
International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2011, ANN ICRP, V39, P1
[9]   Application of low dose rate pulsed fluoroscopy in cardiac pacing and electrophysiology: patient dose and image quality implications [J].
Kotre, CJ ;
Charlton, S ;
Robson, KJ ;
Birch, IP ;
Willis, SP ;
Thornley, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2004, 77 (919) :597-599
[10]   Dose reduction fluoroscopy in pediatrics [J].
Lederman, HM ;
Khademian, ZP ;
Felice, M ;
Hurh, PJ .
PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2002, 32 (12) :844-848