In plain language
In 40 interventional procedures on one X-ray volume imaging system, the interventionist's hands and left knee received more dose than the assistant physician's. Hands received the most of the regions measured. Cone-beam computed tomography (CT) gave patients the highest dose.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Interventional radiologists, Other physicians, Patients
- Size
- n = 40 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Hand and left-knee doses to the interventionist were higher than those to the assistant physician.
Key figures: P < 0.05
Of the anatomical regions measured, the hands of procedural personnel received the highest doses.
Patient dose (DAP and skin entry dose) was lowest with catheter angiography and highest with cone-beam CT, with significant differences between groups.
Key figures: all P = 0.0001
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allowed clear lesion delineation, but objective and subjective image-quality assessments gave opposite results because of noise and artefacts.
Key figures: all P < 0.05
Limits to keep in mind
This is a small single-system study of 40 patients, and only the abstract was available. Staff dose values, the number of personnel, the country and the shielding used are not reported.
Related research summaries
- EU BSS Summary for Health Professionals (2015, Regulation or standard)
- IU Health Handbook of Fluoroscopy Safety (Guideline or consensus statement)
- A Study of Radiation Exposure and the Effects of Real-time Dosimetry System on Staff Safety in Neurointerventional Procedures (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Assessment of Radiation Dose in Neurointerventional Procedures Using a Modern Digital Fluoroscopy System (2026, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Clinical Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Endovascular Visceral Interventions (2026, Prospective cohort study)
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.