1996American Journal of RoentgenologyRequires access

Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric patients using pulsed fluoroscopy.

R. J. Hernandez, M Goodsitt

Open publisher page 121 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if pulsed fluoroscopy reduces radiation exposure to pediatric patients undergoing conventional fluoroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Four hundred one consecutive patients were nonrandomly divided into pulsed fluoroscopy and conventional fluoroscopy study groups. Two control groups were also assembled: 474 patients evaluated with conventional fluoroscopy before the study and 138 patients evaluated with pulsed fluoroscopy after the study. RESULTS: We found no difference in fluoroscopy times across the groups. Although the number of digital spot films was slightly higher for the pulsed fluoroscopy study group than for the conventional fluoroscopy study group, we found no difference in the number of digital spot films for the pulsed fluoroscopy study group and for the conventional fluoroscopy control group. Furthermore, the difference in the number of digital spot films was also insignificant for the pulsed fluoroscopy control group and the conventional fluoroscopy study group. The radiation exposure in the pulsed fluoroscopy study group was 50% lower (mean, 0.6 R) than in the conventional fluoroscopy study group. When using pulsed fluoroscopy in the 7.5 pulses-per-second mode, we were able to reduce radiation exposure by 75% of that from conventional fluoroscopy. CONCLUSION: Pulsed fluoroscopy reduces fluoroscopic radiation exposure to pediatric patients undergoing conventional fluoroscopy. Despite minor image degradation, pulsed fluoroscopy is the technique of choice at our institution.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if pulsed fluoroscopy reduces radiation exposure to pediatric patients undergoing conventional fluoroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Four hundred one consecutive patients were nonrandomly divided into pulsed fluoroscopy and conventional fluoroscopy study groups. Two control groups were also assembled: 474 patients evaluated with conventional fluoroscopy before the study and 138 patients evaluated with pulsed fluoroscopy after the study. RESULTS: We found no difference in fluoroscopy times across the groups. Although the number of digital spot films was slightly higher for the pulsed fluoroscopy study group than for the conventional fluoroscopy study group, we found no difference in the number of digital spot films for the pulsed fluoroscopy study group and for the conventional fluoroscopy control group. Furthermore, the difference in the number of digital spot films was also insignificant for the pulsed fluoroscopy control group and the conventional fluoroscopy study group. The radiation exposure in the pulsed fluoroscopy study group was 50% lower (mean, 0.6 R) than in the conventional fluoroscopy study group. When using pulsed fluoroscopy in the 7.5 pulses-per-second mode, we were able to reduce radiation exposure by 75% of that from conventional fluoroscopy. CONCLUSION: Pulsed fluoroscopy reduces fluoroscopic radiation exposure to pediatric patients undergoing conventional fluoroscopy. Despite minor image degradation, pulsed fluoroscopy is the technique of choice at our institution.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 121 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if pulsed fluoroscopy reduces radiation exposure to pediatric patients undergoing conventional fluoroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Four hundred one consecutive patients were nonrandomly divided into pulsed fluoroscopy and conventional fluoroscopy study groups. Two control groups were also assembled: 474 patients evaluated with conventional fluoroscopy before the study and 138 patients evaluated with pulsed fluoroscopy after the study. RESULTS: We found no difference in fluoroscopy times across the groups. Although the number of digital spot films was slightly higher for the pulsed fluoroscopy study group than for the conventional fluoroscopy study group, we found no difference in the number of digital spot films for the pulsed fluoroscopy study group and for the conventional fluoroscopy control group. Furthermore, the difference in the number of digital spot films was also insignificant for the pulsed fluoroscopy control group and the conventional fluoroscopy study group. The radiation exposure in the pulsed fluoroscopy study group was 50% lower (mean, 0.6 R) than in the conventional fluoroscopy study group. When using pulsed fluoroscopy in the 7.5 pulses-per-second mode, we were able to reduce radiation exposure by 75% of that from conventional fluoroscopy. CONCLUSION: Pulsed fluoroscopy reduces fluoroscopic radiation exposure to pediatric patients undergoing conventional fluoroscopy. Despite minor image degradation, pulsed fluoroscopy is the technique of choice at our institution.

Key concepts: Fluoroscopy, Medicine, Radiation exposure, Radiology, Significant difference, Nuclear medicine, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric patients using pulsed fluoroscopy. — Research Paper | ScholarLens