Top

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

Published in:

01-12-2013 | Technical Note

Radiation Exposure in Biliary Procedures Performed to Manage Anastomotic Strictures in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients: Comparison Between Radiation Exposure Levels Using an Image Intensifier and a Flat-Panel Detector-Based System

Authors: Roberto Miraglia, Luigi Maruzzelli, Fabio Tuzzolino, Pietro Luigi Indovina, Angelo Luca

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 6/2013

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to estimate radiation exposure in pediatric liver transplants recipients who underwent biliary interventional procedures and to compare radiation exposure levels between biliary interventional procedures performed using an image intensifier-based angiographic system (IIDS) and a flat panel detector-based interventional system (FPDS).

Materials and Methods

We enrolled 34 consecutive pediatric liver transplant recipients with biliary strictures between January 2008 and March 2013 with a total of 170 image-guided procedures. The dose-area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time was recorded for each procedure. The mean age was 61 months (range 4–192), and mean weight was 17 kg (range 4–41). The procedures were classified into three categories: percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary catheter placement (n = 40); cholangiography and balloon dilatation (n = 55); and cholangiography and biliary catheter change or removal (n = 75). Ninety-two procedures were performed using an IIDS. Seventy-eight procedures performed after July 2010 were performed using an FPDS. The difference in DAP between the two angiographic systems was compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and a multiple linear regression model.

Results

Mean DAP in the three categories was significantly greater in the group of procedures performed using the IIDS compared with those performed using the FPDS. Statistical analysis showed a p value = 0.001 for the PTBD group, p = 0.0002 for the cholangiogram and balloon dilatation group, and p = 0.00001 for the group with cholangiogram and biliary catheter change or removal.

Conclusion

In our selected cohort of patients, the use of an FPDS decreases radiation exposure.

Heffron TG, Emond JC, Whitington PF et al (1992) Biliary complications in pediatric liver transplantation. A comparison of decreased-size and whole grafts. Transplantation 53:391–395PubMedCrossRef

Lallier M, St-Vil D, Luks FI, Bensoussan AL, Guttman FM, Blanchard H et al (1993) Biliary tract complications in pediatric orthotopic liver transplantation. J Pediatr Surg 28:1102–1105PubMedCrossRef

Lorenz JM, Funaki B, Leef JA et al (2001) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage in pediatric liver transplant patients. Am J Roentgenol 176(3):761–765CrossRef

Lorenz JM, Denison G, Funaki B et al (2005) Balloon dilatation of biliary-enteric strictures in children. Am J Roentgenol 184(1):151–155CrossRef

Sunku B, Salvalaggio PR, Donaldson JS et al (2006) Outcomes and risk factors for failure of radiologic treatment of biliary strictures in pediatric liver transplantation recipients. Liver Transpl 12(5):821–826PubMedCrossRef

Miraglia R, Maruzzelli L, Caruso S et al (2008) Percutaneous management of biliary strictures after pediatric liver transplantation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31(5):993–998PubMedCrossRef

Brun N, Bueno J, Pérez M et al (2010) Long term follow-up of bile duct stenosis treated with interventional radiology in pediatric liver transplantation. Cir Pediatr 23(1):3–6PubMed

Moreira AM, Carnevale FC, Tannuri U et al (2010) Long-term results of percutaneous bilioenteric anastomotic stricture treatment in liver-transplanted children. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33(1):90–96PubMedCrossRef

Kleinerman R (2006) Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children. Pediatr Radiol 36(Suppl 2):121–125PubMedCrossRef

10.

Linet M, Kim K, Rajaraman P (2009) Children’s exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol 39(Suppl 1):S4–S26PubMedCrossRef

11.

Sidhu M, Coley BD, Goske MJ et al (2009) Image gently, step lightly: increasing radiation dose awareness in pediatric interventional radiology. Pediatr Radiol 39(10):1135–1138PubMedCrossRef

12.

Sidhu M (2010) Radiation safety in pediatric interventional radiology: step lightly. Pediatr Radiol 40(4):511–513PubMedCrossRef

13.

Broelsh CE, Whitington PF, Emond JC et al (1991) Liver transplantation in children from living related living donors. Ann Surg 214:428–437CrossRef

14.

Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB et al (2009) Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20(Suppl 7):S263–S273PubMedCrossRef

15.

Miller DL, Balter S, Wagner LK et al (2004) Quality improvement guidelines for recording patient radiation dose in the medical record. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:423–429PubMedCrossRef

16.

Righi D, Doriguzzi A, Rampado O et al (2008) Interventional procedures for biliary drainage with bilioplasty in pediatric patients: dosimetric aspects. Radiol Med 113(3):429–438PubMedCrossRef

17.

Miller DL, Kwon D, Bonavia GH (2009) Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for US practice. Radiology 253(3):753–764PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF (2009) National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. Br J Radiol 82(973):1–12PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kloeckner R, Bersch A, Dos Santos DP et al (2012) Radiation exposure in nonvascular fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35(3):613–2018PubMedCrossRef

20.

Bacher K, Bogaert E, Lapere R et al (2005) Patient-specific dose and radiation risk estimation in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Circulation 111(1):83–89PubMedCrossRef

21.

Holmes DR Jr, Laskey WK, Wondrow MA et al (2004) Flat-panel detectors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: revolution or evolution—what are the issues? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 63:324–330PubMedCrossRef

22.

Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N et al (2004) Dose performance evaluation of a charge coupled device and a flat-panel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 111:297–304PubMedCrossRef

23.

Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N et al (2004) Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 77:562–567PubMedCrossRef

24.

Suzuki S, Furui S, Kobayashi I et al (2005) Radiation dose to patients and radiologists during transcatheter arterial embolization: comparison of a digital flat-panel system and conventional unit. Am J Roentgenol 185:855–859CrossRef

25.

Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM et al (2007) Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? study comparing X-ray dose and image quality. Eur Radiol 17:1787–1794PubMedCrossRef

26.

Seibert JA (2006) Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they? Pediatr Radiol 36(Suppl 2):173–181PubMedCrossRef

Title: Radiation Exposure in Biliary Procedures Performed to Manage Anastomotic Strictures in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients: Comparison Between Radiation Exposure Levels Using an Image Intensifier and a Flat-Panel Detector-Based System
Authors: Roberto Miraglia
Luigi Maruzzelli
Fabio Tuzzolino
Pietro Luigi Indovina
Angelo Luca
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0660-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Radiation Exposure in Biliary Procedures Performed to Manage Anastomotic Strictures in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients: Comparison Between Radiation Exposure Levels Using an Image Intensifier and a Flat-Panel Detector-Based System

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

The Effects of Metallic Implants on Electroporation Therapies: Feasibility of Irreversible Electroporation for Brachytherapy Salvage

Interest of Electrostimulation of Peripheral Motor Nerves during Percutaneous Thermal Ablation

How MRI Compatible is “MRI Compatible”? A Systematic Comparison of Artifacts Caused by Biopsy Needles at 3.0 and 1.5 T

Erratum to: Warming Effect on Miriplatin–Lipiodol Suspension as a Chemotherapeutic Agent for Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Preliminary Clinical Experience

Retrospective review of thoracic neural damage during lung ablation – what the interventional radiologist needs to know about neural thoracic anatomy

Periprocedural Prophylactic Antithrombotic Strategies in Interventional Radiology: Current Practice in the Netherlands and Comparison with the United Kingdom