In plain language
In 60 patients, aortic sealing with Nellix used about half the fluoroscopy time and patient dose of standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Staff dose was not measured, but lower procedural dose would likely mean less exposure for the vascular team.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 60 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Patient effective dose was lower with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) than with standard EVAR.
Key figures: 3.72 mSv vs 6.8 mSv; P ≤ .001
Cumulative air kerma was about halved with EVAS.
Key figures: 67.65 mGy vs 139 mGy; P ≤ .001
Fluoroscopy time was shorter with EVAS.
Key figures: 9 minutes vs 19 minutes; P < .001
Dose area product was lower with EVAS.
Key figures: 12.4 Gy.cm2 vs 22.6 Gy.cm2; P < .001
Fluoroscopy time correlated with patient weight, body mass index (BMI) and procedure time.
Key figures: P = .022 (weight), P = .004 (BMI), P = .005 (procedure time)
Limits to keep in mind
Small, non-randomized single-series comparison of 60 patients using indirect patient dose metrics; staff dose was not measured, so the benefit to operators and staff is an inference. The Nellix device choice may reflect patient selection differences.
Related research summaries
- Fluoroscopy-minimization strategy for catheter ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardia by wOmen OPerators: the STOOP Multicentre Registry (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Radiation Awareness for EVAR in Hybrid Operating Room: An Instant Operator Risk Chart (2021, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Utilization of a Radiation Safety Time-Out Reduces Radiation Exposure During Electrophysiology Procedures (2019, Prospective cohort study)
- Completely nonfluoroscopic catheter ablation of left atrial arrhythmias and ventricular tachycardia (2018, Case report or series)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.