In plain language
In 39 fenestrated aortic repairs, dosimeters near anesthesia recorded higher doses than operators, staff dose tracked kerma area product, and shielding sharply cut technologist dose during cone beam computed tomography (CT). These are dosimeter readings, not health outcomes.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Vascular surgeons, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Anesthesia staff, Patients
- Size
- n = 39 procedures
- Topics
- Dosimetry and monitoringDose reduction techniquesRoom shielding and protective devicesPersonal protective equipmentPatient dose
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
The dosimeter on the anesthesia equipment recorded more radiation per case than the average operator, attributed to ineffective shielding.
Key figures: 143 μSv (38-247) more per case
Personnel doses correlated well with patient kerma area product but less well with fluoroscopy time or cumulative air kerma.
Key figures: r = .82 operator, r = .85 scrub nurse, r = .86 anesthesia; all P < .001
During preoperative cone beam CT, the technologist's dose was far lower when shielded than when unshielded.
Key figures: 1.1 μSv (0.6-1.5) shielded vs 37 μSv (22-53) unshielded
Operator dose rate was higher with lateral C-arm projection than posterior-anterior projection.
Key figures: 1.78 (1.37-2.31) times
After adjusting for lead aprons, average operator effective dose per case was modest; digital subtraction acquisitions accounted for a large share of all staff doses.
Key figures: 38 μSv effective dose per case
Limits to keep in mind
Single procedure type (fenestrated thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair) in 39 cases, likely at one center; anesthesia dose measured on equipment rather than on the person, and effective dose estimated by formula.
Related research summaries
- Radiation exposure to operating room personnel and patients during endovascular procedures (2013, Dosimetry measurement study)
- ICRP Draft - Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures (Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology (2022, Narrative review)
- Radiation-Induced Noncancer Risks in Interventional Cardiology: Optimisation of Procedures and Staff and Patient Dose Reduction (2013, Narrative review)
- AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (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.