Radiation exposure during modern therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound procedures and standard alternatives

Abstract

Background and study aims Therapeutic EUS (t-EUS) is increasingly being adopted in clinical practice in tertiary referral centers; however, little is known about radiation exposure (RE) metrics and diagnostic reference limits for it. Methods Kerma-area product (KAP [Gy·cm ² ]), Air Kerma and fluoroscopy time were retrospectively evaluated for all consecutive t-EUS procedures performed in San Raffaele Institute between 2019 and 2021. For EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomies (EUS-CDS) and gastroenterostomies (EUS-GE), an equal number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) plus metal stenting and duodenal stents were included respectively for comparison. Results Data from 141 t-EUS procedures were retrieved (49 % pancreatic cancer, 38 % peripancreatic fluid collections). EUS-CDS (N = 44) were mainly performed fluoroless, while ERCPs required a significantly higher RE (KAP = 25 [17-55], P < 0.0001). Fluid collection drainage (EUS-FCD) with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS, N = 26) were performed fluoroless, while EUS-FCD with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS, N = 28) required higher RE (KAP = 23 [13-45]). EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD, N = 6) required scarce RE (KAP = 9 [3-21]) for coaxial DPPS placement. EUS-GE (N = 27) required higher RE than duodenal stenting (KAP = 44 [28-88] versus 29 [19-46], P = 0.03). EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomies (EUS-HGS, N = 10) had the highest RE among t-EUS procedures (KAP = 81 [49-123]). Procedure complexity or intervening complications were evaluated and resulted in higher RE within each procedure. Conclusions t-EUS procedures have different RE ( P < 0.000001). EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-FCD with LAMS can be performed with no-to-mild radioscopy, unlike standard alternatives. However, radioscopy remains essential in case of technical difficulties or complications. EUS-GE and EUS-HGS involve a high RE. Endoscopists involved in t-EUS might experience RE higher than category standards, which indicates a need for increased awareness and personalized preventive measures.

Fig. 1

Box-and-whiskers plots of Kerma-Area Products (KAP) values distribution according to each t-EUS procedure. Different colors represent the lower (green), intermediate (yellow) and higher (red) quartiles in which median values of KAP for each t-EUS procedure are distributed. EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomies (EUS-CDS) are further compared with ERCP with metal SEMS placement as well as EUS-guided Gastroenterostomies (EUS-GE) are compared with duodenal stent placements ( P values shown above the bracket).

Fig. 2

Kerma-Area Products (KAP) for each t-EUS procedure, further stratified by procedure complexity. For each endoscopic procedure, box-and-whiskers plots of values distribution are separately represented for “trouble-free” procedures in black and procedures with inconveniences (when any) in orange. P values of comparisons are reported above brackets.