Low-dose pulsed vs standard pulsed fluoroscopy during ERCP to reduce radiation without change in image quality: Prospective randomized study

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) poses the risk of radiation exposure (RE) to patients and staff and increases the risk of adverse biological effects such as cataracts, sterility, and cancer. Newer fluoroscopy equipment (C-Arm) provides options to limit radiation in the form of lower radiation dose and frame rate or time-limited “pulsed” settings. However, the impact of lower settings on image quality has not been assessed, and no standard protocol exists for fluoroscopy settings used during ERCP.

Patients and methods This was a single-center, double-blind, prospective randomized study of consecutive adult patients undergoing standard-of-care ERCP at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were randomized into two groups: 1) standard-dose pulsed and 2) low-dose pulsed. Pulsed mode (8 fps) was defined as x-ray exposure either in the manufacturer standard-dose or low-dose settings limited to 3 seconds each time the foot-operated switch was depressed.

Results Seventy-eight patients undergoing ERCP were enrolled and randomized. No difference in age, gender, or body mass index was found between the two groups. No significant difference in image quality was found between standard-dose and low-dose fluoroscopy P = 0.925). The low-dose group was exposed to significantly less radiation when compared with standard-dose P < 0.05). Fluoroscopy time (minutes) was similar in both groups (2.0 vs 1.9), further suggesting that group assignment had no impact on image quality or procedure time.

Conclusions Low-dose pulsed fluoroscopy is a reliable method that substantially reduces radiation without compromising image quality or affecting procedure or fluoroscopy times. This underscores the need for standardization in ERCP fluoroscopy settings to limit radiation exposure.

Publication History

Received: 23 August 2023

Accepted after revision: 06 March 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
11 March 2024

Article published online:
15 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Tsapaki V, Paraskeva D, Giannakopoulos A. et al. Patient and staff radiation exposure during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: eight years of dose monitoring. OMICS J Radiol 2017; 06 DOI: 10.4172/2167-7964.1000253.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Sondhaus CA. Responses to low doses of ionizing radiation in biological systems. Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med 2004; 2: 143-171 DOI: 10.1080/15401420490507431. (PMID: 19330141)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Feinendegen LE, Loken MK, Booz J. et al. Cellular mechanisms of protection and repair induced by radiation exposure and their consequences for cell system responses. Stem Cells Dayt Ohio 1995; 13: 7-20
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 UNSCEAR 2000 Report Volume II. United Nations: Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_2.html
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Sugahara Tsutomu, Sagan LA, Sagan LA. et al. Low dose irradiation and biological defense mechanisms. Eds. Netherlands: Excerpta Medica 1992
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Radiobiology for the Radiologist – Eric J. Hall – Google Books. https://books.google.com/books/about/Radiobiology_for_the_Radiologist.html?id=VkhrAAAAMAAJ
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 National Research Council (US) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V). Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Beir V. National Academies Press (US); 1990. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218704/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hall EJ, Griffin RJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66: 627 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.027.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 National Radiological Protection Board. Documents of the National Radiological Protection Board 7. London: HMSO; 1996. Risk from deterministic effects of ionizing radiation. Google search. Accessed July 5, 2023. https://www.google.com/search?q=National+Radiological+Protection+Board+.+Documents+of+the+National+Radiological+Protection+Board+7.+London%3A+HMSO%3B+1996.+Risk+from+deterministic+effects+of+ionizing+radiation&rlz=1C1UEAD_enUS1007JM1007&oq=National+Radiological+Protection+Board+.+Documents+of+the+National+Radiological+Protection+Board+7.+London%3A+HMSO%3B+1996.+Risk+from+deterministic+effects+of+ionizing+radiation&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBBzIwNGowajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT. et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100: 13761-13766
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Andreassi MG. The biological effects of diagnostic cardiac imaging on chronically exposed physicians: the importance of being non-ionizing. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2004; 2: 25 DOI: 10.1186/1476-7120-2-25. (PMID: 15555078)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Report No. 136 – Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation (2001) - NCRP | Bethesda, MD. Published July 18, 2018. https://ncrponline.org/shop/reports/report-no-136-evaluation-of-the-linear-nonthreshold-dose-response-model-for-ionizing-radiation-2001/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Vanzant D, Mukhdomi J. Safety of Fluoroscopy in Patient, Operator, and Technician. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2023. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570567/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Österlund A, Drohn W, Hoedlmoser H. et al. Staff dose evaluation by application of radiation protection during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures performed with a mobile C-arm. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 2022; 63: 11-21
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Ojodu I, Ogunsemoyin A, Hopp S. et al. C-arm fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgical practice. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol 2018; 28: 1563-1568 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-018-2234-7. (PMID: 29796825)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Cristante AF, Barbieri F, da Silva AAR. et al. Radiation exposure during spine surgery using c-Arm fluoroscopy. Acta Ortop Bras 2019; 27: 46-49
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Wada K, Inoue T, Hagiwara K. et al. Surgical results of intraoperative c-arm fluoroscopy versus O-arm in transarticular screw fixation for atlantoaxial instability. World Neurosurg 2020; 139: e686-e690 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.109. (PMID: 32339745)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Choi EJ, Go G, Han WK. et al. Radiation exposure to the eyes and thyroid during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided cervical epidural injections is far below the safety limit. Korean J Pain 2020; 33: 73-80
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Maus T, Schueler BA, Leng S. et al. Radiation dose incurred in the exclusion of vascular filling in transforaminal epidural steroid injections: fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and CT/fluoroscopy. Pain Med 2014; 15: 1328-1333 DOI: 10.1111/pme.12455. (PMID: 24961152)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Kamran M, Nagaraja S, Byrne JV. C-arm flat detector computed tomography: the technique and its applications in interventional neuro-radiology. Neuroradiology 2010; 52: 319-327 DOI: 10.1007/s00234-009-0609-5. (PMID: 19859702)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Zhu X, Felice M, Johnson L. et al. Developing low-dose C-arm CT imaging for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder in interventional radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2011; 41: 476-482 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-010-1885-2. (PMID: 21079943)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Joh JH. Endovascular intervention with a mobile C-arm in the operating room. Vasc Spec Int 2019; 35: 70-76
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Salinas P, Sanchez-Casanueva RM, Gonzalo N. et al. Dose-reducing fluoroscopic system decreases patient but not occupational radiation exposure in chronic total occlusion intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 98: 895-902 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29253. (PMID: 32930499)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 de Ruiter QMB, Fontana JR, Pritchard WF. et al. Endovascular steerable and endobronchial precurved guiding sheaths for transbronchial needle delivery under augmented fluoroscopy and cone beam CT image guidance. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021; 10: 3627-3644 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-21-275. (PMID: 34584862)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Maurel B, Sobocinski J, Perini P. et al. Evaluation of radiation during EVAR performed on a mobile C-arm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2012; 43: 16-21
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Danilovic A, Nunes E, Lipkin ME. et al. Low dose fluoroscopy during ureteroscopy does not compromise surgical outcomes. J Endourol 2019; 33: 527-532
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Tsapaki V, Christou A, Spanodimos S. et al. Evaluation of radiation dose during pacemaker implantations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011; 147: 75-77
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Cabrera FJ, Shin RH, Waisanen KM. et al. Comparison of radiation exposure from fixed table fluoroscopy to a portable C-arm during ureteroscopy. J Endourol 2017; 31: 835-840
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Robatjazi M, Dareyni A, Baghani HR. et al. Investigation of radiation dose around C-arm fluoroscopy and relevant cancer risk to operating room staff. Radiat Environ Biophys 2022; 61: 301-307 DOI: 10.1007/s00411-022-00965-7. (PMID: 35171318)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Johlin FC, Pelsang RE, Greenleaf M. Phantom study to determine radiation exposure to medical personnel involved in ERCP fluoroscopy and its reduction through equipment and behavior modifications. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 893-897 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05605.x. (PMID: 12003424)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Weigt J, Pech M, Kandulski A. et al. Cone-beam computed tomography – adding a new dimension to ERCP. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 654-657 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391483. (PMID: 25675173)
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Uradomo LT, Goldberg EM, Darwin PE. Time-limited fluoroscopy to reduce radiation exposure during ERCP: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 84-89 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.10.055. (PMID: 17591479)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: Computing RFfS, ed. Vienna, Austria 2021 https://www.r-project.org
  PubMed
• 34 Hadley Wickham LH, Vaughan D. vctrs: Vector Helpers. 2022
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Pinheiro JBD, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. 2021
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Sabat S, Slonimsky E. Radiation reduction in low dose pulsed fluoroscopy versus standard dose continuous fluoroscopy during fluoroscopically-guided lumbar punctures: a prospective controlled study. J Clin Imaging Sci 2018; 8: 9 DOI: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_94_17. (PMID: 29619280)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Badawy MK, Scott M, Farouque O. et al. Feasibility of using ultra-low pulse rate fluoroscopy during routine diagnostic coronary angiography. J Med Radiat Sci 2018; 65: 252-258
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Liao C, Thosani N, Kothari S. et al. Radiation exposure to patients during ERCP is significantly higher with low-volume endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 391-398.e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Takenaka M, Hosono M, Hayashi S. et al. The radiation doses and radiation protection on the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures. Br J Radiol 2021; 94: 20210399 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210399. (PMID: 34379457)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Tonnessen BH, Pounds L. Radiation physics. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53: 6S-8S DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.05.138. (PMID: 20869192)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Takenaka M, Hosono M, Rehani MM. et al. Comparison of radiation exposure between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for pancreatobiliary diseases. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 579-586
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J. et al. Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 868-874 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.036. (PMID: 21377673)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material