Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cumulative Radiation Exposure With EOS Imaging Compared With Standard Spine Radiographs

  • Case Series
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective comparative study.

Objectives

This study sought to estimate the total radiation exposure to scoliosis patients during the entire treatment course using standard imaging techniques versus EOS posteroanterior (PA) and anteroposterior (AP) views.

Summary of Background Data

EOS is a slot-scanning X-ray system designed to reduce radiation exposure in orthopedic imaging. There are few independent studies comparing organ and total effective radiation dose from standard EOS PA, AP, and lateral imaging versus conventional projection radiographs for children with spinal deformity.

Methods

A total of 42 skeletally immature idiopathic scoliosis patients were treated with bracing (21) or spinal fusion (21) and were followed to skeletal maturity. The number of scoliosis radiographs (PA and lateral) for each patient was recorded. A computerized dosing model was used to calculate estimated patient and organ doses for PA and lateral scoliosis X-rays taken with EOS or computed radiography with a filter (CR) or without a filter (CRF). Assuming that each X-ray taken delivered the same radiation as the phantom calculation, the authors estimated the total effective and organ dose that each adolescent would have received using EOS, CR, or CRF. Annual background radiation is 3 mSv.

Results

Mean number of radiographs per patient was 20.9 (range, 8-43). Patients who underwent surgical treatment had a significantly greater number of X-rays than those who were braced (27.3 vs. 14.5; p <.001). Assuming all films were CR, the mean cumulative dose was estimated at 5.38 mSv. With standard EOS films, the mean cumulative estimated dose was 2.66 mSv, a decrease of 50.6%. An AP versus PA EOS radiograph resulted in an 8 times higher radiation dose to the breasts and 4 times higher dose to the thyroid.

Conclusions

The standard EOS imaging system moderately reduced the total radiation exposure to skeletally immature scoliosis patients. Over the entire treatment course, this represented 2.72 mSv mean reduction or 0.91 years of background radiation. Posteroanterior films significantly reduced breast and thyroid dose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cannon TA, Neto NA, Kelly DM, et al. Characterization of radiation exposure in early-onset scoliosis patients treated with the vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib (VEPTR). J Pediatr Orthop 2014;34:179–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sharp NE, Raghavan MU, Svetanoff WJ, et al. Radiation exposure— how do CT scans for appendicitis compare between a free standing children’s hospital and non-dedicated pediatric facilities? J Pediatr Surg 2014;49:1016–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hawking NG, Sharp TD. Decreasing radiation exposure on pediatric portable chest radiographs. Radiol Technol 2013;85:9–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stokes OM, O’Donovan EJ, Samartzis D, et al. Reducing radiation exposure in early-onset scoliosis surgery patients: novel use of ultrasonography to measure lengthening in magnetically-controlled growing rods. Spine J 2014;14:2397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ungi T, King F, Kempston M, et al. Spinal curvature measurement by tracked ultrasound snapshots. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014;40:447–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vila-Casademunt A, Pellise F, Domingo-Sabat M, et al. Is routine postoperative radiologic follow-up justified in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine Deformity 2013;1:223–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Garg S, Kipper E, LaGreca J, et al. Are routine postoperative radiographs necessary during the first year after posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis? A retrospective cohort analysis of implant failure and surgery revision rates. J Pediatr Orthop 2014 [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CW, Schwab A, et al. Comparison of radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort and financial break-even of standard digital radiography and a novel biplanar low-dose X-ray system for upright full-length lower limb and whole spine radiography. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:959–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ilharreborde B, Steffen JS, Nectoux E, et al. Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E1306–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Monnin P, Holzer Z, Wolf R, et al. An image quality comparison of standard and dual-side read CR systems for pediatric radiology. Med Phys 2006;33:411–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Levy AR, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, et al. Reducing the lifetime risk of cancer from spinal radiographs among people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:1540–7. discussion 1548.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cristy M, Eckerman KF. Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gray JE, Hoffman AD, Peterson HA. Reduction of radiation exposure during radiography for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983;65:5–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gogos KA, Yakoumakis EN, Tsalafoutas IA, Makri TK. Radiation dose considerations in common paediatric X-ray examinations. Pediatr Radiol 2003;33:236–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tapiovaara MJ, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A. PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations. Helskini, Finland: STUK (Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety); 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: International Commission on Radiological Protection; 2007.

  17. Preston DL, Cullings H, Suyama A, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:428–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat Res 2007;168:1–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ron E, Preston DL, Mabuchi K. More about cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: solid tumors, 1958-1987. Radiat Res 1995;141:126–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. BEIR VII health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, Phase 2. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X. Accessed June 14, 2014.

  21. Ronckers CM, Land CE, Miller JS, et al. Cancer mortality among women frequently exposed to radiographic examinations for spinal disorders. Radiat Res 2010;174:83–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wrixon AD. New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prof 2008;28:161–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Society HP. Background radiation: fact sheet. Accessed June 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Deschenes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, et al. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X- ray imager. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:989–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kalifa G, Charpak Y, Maccia C, et al. Evaluation of a new low-dose digital x-ray device: first dosimetric and clinical results in children. Pediatr Radiol 1998;28:557–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Doody MM, Lonstein JE, Stovall M, et al. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2052–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R, et al. EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2012;16:1–188.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Damet J, Fournier P, Monnin P, et al. Occupational and patient exposure as well as image quality for full spine examinations with the EOS imaging system. Med Phys 2014;41:063901.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Valentin J. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT). Ann ICRP 2007;37:1–79. iii.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Seibert JA. Tradeoffs between image quality and dose. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34:S183–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brosi P, Stuessi A, Verdun FR, et al. Copper filtration in pediatric digital X-ray imaging: its impact on image quality and dose. Radiol Phys Technol 2011;4:148–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    T. David Luo MD, Anthony A. Stans MD & A. Noelle Larson MD

  2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Beth A. Schueler PhD

Authors
  1. T. David Luo MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony A. Stans MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beth A. Schueler PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Noelle Larson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Noelle Larson MD.

Additional information

Author disclosures: TDL (none); AAS (none); BAS (none); ANL (none).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, T.D., Stans, A.A., Schueler, B.A. et al. Cumulative Radiation Exposure With EOS Imaging Compared With Standard Spine Radiographs. Spine Deform 3, 144–150 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.049

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.049

Keywords

Search

Navigation