Radiation exposure using the O-arm® surgical imaging system
This study was conducted to characterise the O-arm® surgical imaging system in terms of patient organ doses and medical staff occupational exposure during three-dimensional thoracic spine and pelvic examinations.
An anthropomorphic phantom was used to evaluate absorbed organ doses during a three-dimensional thoracic spine scan and a three-dimensional pelvic scan with the O-arm®. Staff occupational exposure was evaluated by constructing an ambient dose cartography of the operating theatre during a three-dimensional pelvic scan as well as using an anthropomorphic phantom to simulate the O-arm® operator.
Patient organ doses ranged from 30 ± 4 μGy to 20.0 ± 3.0 mGy and 4 ± 1 μGy to 6.7 ± 1.0 mGy for a three-dimensional thoracic spine and pelvic examination, respectively. For a single three-dimensional acquisition, the maximum ambient equivalent dose at 2 m from the iso-centre was 11 ± 1 μSv.
Doses delivered to the patient during a three-dimensional thoracic spine image acquisition were found to be significant with the O-arm®, but lower than those observed with a standard computed tomography examination. The detailed dose cartography allows for the optimisation of medical staff positioning within the operating theatre while imaging with the O-arm®.
KeywordsO-arm Staff and patient radiation exposure Dosimetry Organ dose 3D surgical imaging system
- 1.Medtronic (2007) O-arm user manual, MNGoogle Scholar
- 2.Jin M, Liu Z, Liu X, Yan H, Han X, Qiu Y, Zhu Z (2015) Does intraoperative navigation improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the apical region of dystrophic scoliosis secondary to neurofibromatosis type I: comparison between O-arm navigation and free-hand technique. Eur Spine J [Epub ahead of print] Google Scholar
- 3.Van de Kelft E, Costa F, Van der Planken D, Schils F (2012) A prospective multicenter registry on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral level with the use of the O-arm imaging system and StealthStation navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E1580–E1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Beir VII (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
- 8.CIRS (2012) ATOM dosimetry phantoms, VAGoogle Scholar
- 9.ICRP (1975) Report on the task group on reference man. Publication 23, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- 10.ICRU (1992) Phantoms and computational models in therapy, diagnosis and protection. Publication 48, MDGoogle Scholar
- 11.JCGM-W (2008) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 12.APVL (2011) Manuel d’utilisation AT1123 V1. Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire, FranceGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hadelsberg UP, Harel R (2012) Hazards of ionizing radiation and its impact on spine surgery. World Neurosurg [Epub ahead of print] Google Scholar
- 15.Söderberg M, Abul-Kasim K, Ohlin A, Gunnarsson M (2011) Estimation of organ and effective dose to the patient during spinal surgery with a cone-beam O-arm system. Proc SPIE 7961:79613G1-G6Google Scholar
- 17.ICRP (2007) Radiological protection in medicine. Publication 105, OttawaGoogle Scholar