Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 8;61(5):705-711.
doi: 10.1093/jrr/rraa060.

Shielding effect of radiation dose reduction fiber during the use of C-arm fluoroscopy: a phantom study

Hyemi Cha  1 , Kisung Lee  1 , Moon Seok Park  2 , Kyoung Min Lee  2 , Kyeyoung Cho  1 , Ki Hyuk Sung  2
Affiliations

Shielding effect of radiation dose reduction fiber during the use of C-arm fluoroscopy: a phantom study

Hyemi Cha et al. J Radiat Res. .

Abstract

This study evaluated the shielding effect of a newly developed dose-reduction fiber (DRF) made from barium sulfate, in terms of radiation doses delivered to patients' radiosensitive organs and operator during C-arm fluoroscopy and its impact on the quality of images. A C-arm fluoroscopy unit was placed beside a whole-body phantom. Radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters were attached to the back and front of the whole-body phantom at 20 cm intervals. Radiation doses were measured without DRF and with it applied to the back (position 1), front (position 2) or both sides (position 3) of the phantom. To investigate the impact of DRF on the quality of fluoroscopic images, step-wedge and modulation transfer function phantoms were used. The absorbed radiation doses to the back of the phantom significantly decreased by 25.3-88.8% after applying DRF to positions 1 and 3. The absorbed radiation doses to the front of the phantom significantly decreased by 55.3-93.6% after applying DRF to positions 2 and 3. The contrast resolution values for each adjacent step area fell in the range 0.0119-0.0209, 0.0128-0.0271, 0.0135-0.0339 and 0.0152-0.0339 without and with DRF applied to positions 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The investigated DRF effectively reduces absorbed radiation doses to patients and operators without decreasing the quality of C-arm fluoroscopic images. Therefore, routine clinical use of the DRF is recommended during the use of C-arm fluoroscopy.

Keywords: C-arm fluoroscopy; barium sulfate; dose reduction fiber; radiation dose.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Experimental setup for measurement of absorbed radiation doses.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Location of radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters (RPLD) and dose reduction fiber (DRF) at positions 1, 2 and and 3.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Comparison of absorbed radiation doses to the front of the whole-body phantom at the location of the thyroid, thymus, abdomen and gonads without DRF and with it applied to the back (position 1), and both sides (position 3) of the phantom.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Comparison of absorbed radiation doses to the back of the whole-body phantom at the location of the thymus, abdomen and gonads without DRF and with it applied to the back (position 1), and both sides (position 3) of the phantom.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Images and contrast resolution of the step-wedge phantom from the C-arm fluoroscopy obtained without DRF and with it applied to the back (position 1), front (position 2) and both sides (position 3) of the phantom.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Images and modulation transfer function (MTF) curves of the MTF phantom from the C-arm fluoroscopy obtained without DRF and with it applied to the back (position 1), front (position 2) and both sides (position 3) of the phantom.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Gavit L, Carlier S, Hayase M et al. . The evolving role of coronary angiography and fluoroscopy in cardiac diagnosis and intervention. EuroIntervention 2007;2:526–32. - PubMed
    1. Huang AJ. Fluoroscopically guided lumbar facet joint injection using an interlaminar approach and loss of resistance technique. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45:671–6. - PubMed
    1. Dawe EJ, Fawzy E, Kaczynski J et al. . A comparative study of radiation dose and screening time between mini C-arm and standard fluoroscopy in elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Surg 2011;17:33–6. - PubMed
    1. Shoaib A, Rethnam U, Bansal R et al. . A comparison of radiation exposure with the conventional versus mini C arm in orthopedic extremity surgery. Foot Ankle Int 2008;29:58–61. - PubMed
    1. Mesbahi A, Rouhani A. A study on the radiation dose of the orthopaedic surgeon and staff from a mini C-arm fluoroscopy unit. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;132:98–101. - PubMed