In plain language
In 294 bunion surgery patients, the minimally invasive META procedure recorded higher fluoroscopy dose than the open Lapidus procedure, with similar fluoroscopy time. Surgeon dose was estimated, not measured, and was projected to stay well below annual occupational limits.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Orthopedic surgeons, Patients
- Size
- n = 294 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
The minimally invasive META bunion procedure had a higher radiation dose than the open modified Lapidus procedure.
Key figures: 2.02 ± 1.30 mGy vs 1.31 ± 1.43 mGy; P = 0.007
Fluoroscopy time did not differ significantly between the two procedures.
Key figures: 2.13 ± 1.27 min vs 1.63 ± 1.83 min; P = 0.123
Assuming surgeons receive 0.50% of the case dose, about 1,980 META procedures would be needed to exceed the 20 mSv annual occupational limit.
Key figures: 0.50% of dose; ~1,980 procedures
Limits to keep in mind
Single-centre retrospective review with two surgeons and a small open-procedure group (36); staff dose was not measured directly but extrapolated from cumulative air kerma using an assumed 0.50% fraction, and air kerma (mGy) was treated as comparable to effective dose limits (mSv).
Related research summaries
- Radiation Exposure during Fluoroscopic Guided Direct Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty (2015, Prospective cohort study)
- Defining reference levels for intra-operative radiation exposure in orthopaedic trauma: A retrospective multicentre study (2015, Retrospective cohort study)
- ICRP Publication 117. Radiological Protection In Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside The Imaging Department (2010, Guideline or consensus statement)
- AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (Guideline or consensus statement)
- ICRP Draft - Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures (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.