Keywords:
Neuroradiology brain, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Fluoroscopy, Radiation safety, Quality assurance
Authors:
R. M. Sanchez, E. Vano, J. M. Fernández Soto, L. Lopez-Ibor, M. M. Moreu, S. Rosati; Madrid/ES
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2019/C-2342
Results
Table 1 shows the main dosimetric parameters for the cases presented.
In cases 1 and 2,
it is possible to see how a similar KPERP may produce quite different peak skin doses.
This stresses the importance of providing an accurate estimation of PSD to the interventionalists,
which appears to be more efficient than basing the follow-up decision on the kerma value at the patient entrance reference point.
Figure 2 shows the skin dose distribution for the three cases.
Figure 3 shows the highest dose case (number 3) in each of the four different procedures.
It can be observed that each procedure contributed separately with peak skin doses under 5 Gy,
that might (or not) produce a transient erythema,
which is a small severity lesion.
But if we estimate the total contribution of the four procedures (as in case 3 figure 2) that were delivered to the patient over an 11 week-period,
the peak skin dose estimated was 13 Gy,
and a follow up for possible lesions of higher severity had to be started.
In fact,
the follow-up program was started after the second procedure.
The patient developed an erythema and epilation that currently need to be followed-up.
The rest of the patients with high doses under supervision developed neither lesions at the skin nor transient erythema and epilation and did not need any further follow-up.