Volume 13, Issue 3 (9-2025)
J Surg Trauma 2025, 13(3): 111-119 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.BUMS.REC.1402.024
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ramezani-DashteBayaz A, Mohammadi Far M, Talebi F, Maleki Z, Sarmadi M, Pandesh S. Evaluation of Dose Area Product in Intraoperative Radiography during Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Procedures. J Surg Trauma 2025; 13 (3) :111-119
URL: http://jsurgery.bums.ac.ir/article-1-482-en.html
URL: http://jsurgery.bums.ac.ir/article-1-482-en.html
Asiye Ramezani-DashteBayaz 
, Mahyar Mohammadi Far 
, Fatemeh Talebi , Zahra Maleki , Maliheh Sarmadi , Sajjad Pandesh *
, Mahyar Mohammadi Far , Fatemeh Talebi , Zahra Maleki , Maliheh Sarmadi , Sajjad Pandesh *
Department of Radiology Technology, School of Allied Medicine, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran
Abstract: (25 Views)
Introduction: Despite the necessity of C-arm and other X-ray imaging devices in operating rooms (ORs) and interventional procedures, awareness of their proper and safe usage remains limited. Comprehensive education regarding the risks and adverse effects of X-ray exposure has not been adequately provided. This study aims to assess the Dose Area Product (DAP) and, consequently, the radiation dose delivered to patients based on various influencing factors.
Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study involved 123 patients undergoing orthopedic and neurosurgical operations at Imam Reza Hospital, Birjand, Iran. Patient demographic information, including height, weight, gender, age, and type of surgery, was recorded confidentially from medical files. Imaging parameters, such as kVp, mAs, distance from the source, and the number of radiographs, were also documented. DAP values were measured at the C-arm output using recorded parameters without altering imaging protocols. Measurements were obtained without patient presence, preventing additional radiation exposure. Data were analyzed using t-test, ANOVA, Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results: This study analyzed DAP in 123 surgical patients (89 male, 34 female) across three ORs. Neurosurgical procedures indicated significantly higher DAP (33.27±15.89 µGy·m²) versus orthopedic cases (0.96-1.67 µGy·m², P<0.001). Lumbar surgeries required 20.8-22.2 µGy·m² more radiation than peripheral regions after age/BMI adjustment. Higher BMI associated with higher DAP (18.43±21.84 µGy·m² for BMI >30 vs 1.38±1.53 µGy·m² for BMI<18, p=0.023). No significant age or gender differences were observed (P>0.05). Equipment variations among ORs significantly affected radiation output despite similar procedures.
Conclusion: This study highlights key factors affecting surgical radiation exposure, including anatomical site, BMI, and procedure type. Spinal, pelvic, and femoral surgeries require particular caution, emphasizing lead apron use and shielding. Strict protection protocols are strongly recommended to minimize risks for both staff and patients, ensuring safer operative environments
Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study involved 123 patients undergoing orthopedic and neurosurgical operations at Imam Reza Hospital, Birjand, Iran. Patient demographic information, including height, weight, gender, age, and type of surgery, was recorded confidentially from medical files. Imaging parameters, such as kVp, mAs, distance from the source, and the number of radiographs, were also documented. DAP values were measured at the C-arm output using recorded parameters without altering imaging protocols. Measurements were obtained without patient presence, preventing additional radiation exposure. Data were analyzed using t-test, ANOVA, Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results: This study analyzed DAP in 123 surgical patients (89 male, 34 female) across three ORs. Neurosurgical procedures indicated significantly higher DAP (33.27±15.89 µGy·m²) versus orthopedic cases (0.96-1.67 µGy·m², P<0.001). Lumbar surgeries required 20.8-22.2 µGy·m² more radiation than peripheral regions after age/BMI adjustment. Higher BMI associated with higher DAP (18.43±21.84 µGy·m² for BMI >30 vs 1.38±1.53 µGy·m² for BMI<18, p=0.023). No significant age or gender differences were observed (P>0.05). Equipment variations among ORs significantly affected radiation output despite similar procedures.
Conclusion: This study highlights key factors affecting surgical radiation exposure, including anatomical site, BMI, and procedure type. Spinal, pelvic, and femoral surgeries require particular caution, emphasizing lead apron use and shielding. Strict protection protocols are strongly recommended to minimize risks for both staff and patients, ensuring safer operative environments
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Orthopedia
Received: 2025/06/7 | Accepted: 2025/09/13 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/09/18 | Published: 2025/09/18
Received: 2025/06/7 | Accepted: 2025/09/13 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/09/18 | Published: 2025/09/18
References
1. Ghayour-Saffar N, Ehsanbakhsh A, Keshtkar M, Pandesh S. Evaluation of DAP Values Obtained from Chest X-rays in Children under 12 Years of Age Referred to Educational Hospitals of Birjand University of Medical Sciences in 2020. Frontiers Biomed Technol. 2022;9(3):185-90. [DOI:10.18502/fbt.v9i3.9644]
2. Majidi H, Bani Mostafavi ES, Younesi M. Comparing the Diagnostic Value of MRU and CT Scan in Diagnosing the Etiology and Severity of Urinary Tract Obstruction in Patients With Renal Colic. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2012;22(95):66-73.
3. Gharib M, Mohammadi S, Mohammadi M, Maghbouli N, Nabian MH. Challenges of Using C-Arm Fluoroscopy Systems: A Mixed Method Study Investigating Orthopedic Surgeons' Experience. J Iran Med Counc. 2024;7(2):344-50. [DOI:10.18502/jimc.v7i2.15047]
4. Biswas D, Bible JE, Whang PG, Simpson AK, Grauer JN. Sterility of C-arm fluoroscopy during spinal surgery. Spine. 2008;33(17):1913-7. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bb130]
5. Javadzadeh, A., Alipour, H. Knowledge of General Dentists about Radiation Protection in Oral Radiographic Examinations in the City of Rasht-Iran in 2009. J Mashhad Dent Sch. 2011; 35(1): 23-32.
6. Sadetzki S, Mandelzweig L. Childhood exposure to external ionising radiation and solid cancer risk. Br J Cancer.2009;100(7):1021-5. [DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604994]
7. Ahmad D, Almatari M, Tumayhi M, Alanazi W, Shrefan M, Agealy W, et al. Occupational Exposure of Scatter Radiation and Proper Protective Methods. J Healthc Sci . 2022;2(11):443-8. [DOI:10.52533/JOHS.2022.21117]
8. Lee WH, Nguyen PK, Fleischmann D, Wu JC. DNA damage-associated biomarkers in studying individual sensitivity to low-dose radiation from cardiovascular imaging. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(40):3075-80. [DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw206]
9. Salama KF, AlObireed A, AlBagawi M, AlSufayan Y, AlSerheed M. Assessment of occupational radiation exposure among medical staff in health-care facilities in the Eastern Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2016;20(1):21-5. [DOI:10.4103/0019-5278.183832]
10. Allahveysi F, Mahmoodi M, Elahimanesh F, Parvizpoor S. Common X-ray machine quality control in hospitals affiliated with Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. SJNMP. 2016;2(2):58-72. [DOI:10.29252/sjnmp.2.2.58]
11. Mettler Jr FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248(1):254-63. [DOI:10.1148/radiol.2481071451]
12. Yanovskiy M, Shaki YY, Socol Y. Ethics of adoption and use of the linear no-threshold model. Dose-Response. 2019;17(1):1559325818822602. [DOI:10.1177/1559325818822602]
13. Laurier D, Billarand Y, Klokov D, Leuraud K. The scientific basis for the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model at low doses and dose rates in radiological protection. J Radiol Prot. 2023;43(2):024003. [DOI:10.1088/1361-6498/acdfd7]
14. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, Rehani MM, Echeverri D, Cabrera M. Radiation cataract risk in interventional cardiology personnel. Radiat Res. 2010;174(4):490-5. [DOI:10.1667/RR2207.1]
15. Lee YS, Lee HK, Cho JH, Kim HG. Analysis of radiation risk to patients from intra-operative use of the mobile X-ray system (C-arm). J Res Med Sci. 2015;20(1):7-12.
16. Baratz MD, Hu YY, Zurakowski D, Appleton P, Rodriguez EK. The primary determinants of radiation use during fixation of proximal femur fractures. Injury. 2014;45(10):1614-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2014.05.010]
17. Bratschitsch G, Leitner L, Stücklschweiger G, Guss H, Sadoghi P, Puchwein P, et al. Radiation exposure of patient and operating room personnel by fluoroscopy and navigation during spinal surgery. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17652. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-53472-z]
18. Billinger J, Nowotny R, Homolka P. Diagnostic reference levels in pediatric radiology in Austria. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(7):1572-9. [DOI:10.1007/s00330-009-1697-7]
19. Roch P, Aubert B. French diagnostic reference levels in diagnostic radiology, computed tomography and nuclear medicine: 2004-2008 review. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2013;154(1):52-75. [DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncs152]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Attribution-NoneCommercial CC BY-NC
