In plain language
In 80 fenestrated aortic repairs by one surgeon, real-time dosimetry showed lower doses to the surgeon, trainee and nurses with standard fenestrated and off-the-shelf devices than with custom-made devices, and higher operator dose with four-vessel repairs.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Prospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Vascular surgeons, Trainees, Anesthesia staff, Nurses, Patients
- Size
- n = 80 procedures
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Zenith Fenestrated devices had lower patient and staff doses than custom-made devices.
Key figures: operator 120 μSv vs 370 μSv; P = .004; patient 1800 mGy vs 2950 mGy; P = .004
Off-the-shelf branched devices had lower operator, assistant and circulator doses than custom-made devices.
Key figures: operator 220 μSv vs 370 μSv; P = .04; circulator 4 μSv vs 30 μSv; P = .001
Four-vessel fenestrated repairs gave higher operator dose than three-vessel repairs.
Key figures: 440 μSv vs 170 μSv; P = .0005
Nurse doses were much lower than operator and assistant doses.
Key figures: circulator 10 μSv vs 30 μSv; scrub 10 μSv vs 40 μSv
Authors judged all doses within acceptable limits and lower than previously reported.
Limits to keep in mind
Single-center, single-surgeon series on one fluoroscopy system with dose-reduction technology, with small numbers in the ZFen and OTS groups and no adjustment beyond body mass index (BMI); device groups were not randomized.
Related research summaries
- Comparison of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease with Flat-Panel Detectors on Mobile C-arm versus Fixed Systems (2017, Prospective cohort study)
- ICRP Draft - Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures (Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation exposure to operating room personnel and patients during endovascular procedures (2013, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Radiation Exposure To Operating Room Personnel And Patients During Endovascular Procedures (2013, Dosimetry measurement study)
- AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 12.a - Fluoroscopy Dose Management (2022, Guideline or consensus statement)
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.