Why the study?
Does EVAR result in higher radiation exposure compared to TEVAR during stent-graft implantation in a hybrid operating room system?
Does EVAR result in higher radiation exposure compared to TEVAR during stent-graft implantation in a hybrid operating room system?
EVAR is associated with approximately twice the fluoroscopy time and 1.2 times the radiation dose compared to TEVAR in a hybrid operating room setting, highlighting the need for procedure-specific radiation optimization.
EVAR was associated with higher radiation exposure than TEVAR; hypothesis-generating for procedure-specific dose optimization in hybrid ORs.
In recent years, aortic aneurysm treatment with stent graft grafting in the X-ray fluoroscopy is increasing. This is an endovascular therapy, because it is a treatment which includes the risk of radiation damage, having to deal with radiation damage, to know in advance is important. In this study, in order to grasp the trend of exposure stent graft implantation in a hybrid operating room (OR) system, focusing on clinical data (entrance skin dose and fluoroscopy time), was to count the total. In TEVAR and EVAR, fluoroscopy time became 13.40 ± 7.27 minutes, 23.67 ± 11.76 minutes, ESD became 0.87 ± 0.41 mGy, 1.11 ± 0.57 mGy. (fluoroscopy time of EVAR was 2.0 times than TEVAR. DAP of EVAR was 1.2 times than TEVAR.) When using the device, adapted lesions and usage are different. This means that care changes in exposure-related factors. In this study, exposure trends of the stent graft implantation was able to grasp. It can be a helpful way to reduce/optimize the radiation dose in a hybrid OR system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haga et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: