Comparison of Radiation Doses for Different Techniques in Fluoroscopy-Guided Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Blocks: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 3.2 3区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY Life-Basel Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.3390/life14091179
Mesut Bakır, Şebnem Rumeli, Mehmet Ertargın, Nurettin Teker, Mustafa Azizoğlu, Gülçin Gazioğlu Türkyılmaz
{"title":"Comparison of Radiation Doses for Different Techniques in Fluoroscopy-Guided Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Blocks: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Mesut Bakır, Şebnem Rumeli, Mehmet Ertargın, Nurettin Teker, Mustafa Azizoğlu, Gülçin Gazioğlu Türkyılmaz","doi":"10.3390/life14091179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic lumbar facet pain is commonly treated with fluoroscopy-guided facet medial branch blocks (FMBBs). However, the associated radiation exposure of both patients and clinicians is a growing concern. This study aimed to compare radiation doses and fluoroscopy times between two techniques, i.e., oblique and posterior-anterior (PA) fluoroscopic approaches, while also examining the impact of physician experience on these metrics. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 180 patients treated at Mersin University Hospital Pain Clinic between January and July 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: 90 received the oblique technique (Group O) and 90 received the AP technique (Group A). Radiation dose and fluoroscopy time data were collected for each patient. The AP technique was associated with significantly lower radiation doses (mean 66 mGy) and shorter fluoroscopy times (mean 28 s) compared to the oblique technique (mean radiation dose of 109 mGy and fluoroscopy time of 46 s) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Physician experience also influenced these outcomes, with more experienced physicians consistently using less radiation. The AP technique should be considered for FMBBs, as it reduces radiation exposure while maintaining procedural efficiency, highlighting the importance of experience in optimizing outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":56144,"journal":{"name":"Life-Basel","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11433151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life-Basel","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/life14091179","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic lumbar facet pain is commonly treated with fluoroscopy-guided facet medial branch blocks (FMBBs). However, the associated radiation exposure of both patients and clinicians is a growing concern. This study aimed to compare radiation doses and fluoroscopy times between two techniques, i.e., oblique and posterior-anterior (PA) fluoroscopic approaches, while also examining the impact of physician experience on these metrics. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 180 patients treated at Mersin University Hospital Pain Clinic between January and July 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: 90 received the oblique technique (Group O) and 90 received the AP technique (Group A). Radiation dose and fluoroscopy time data were collected for each patient. The AP technique was associated with significantly lower radiation doses (mean 66 mGy) and shorter fluoroscopy times (mean 28 s) compared to the oblique technique (mean radiation dose of 109 mGy and fluoroscopy time of 46 s) (p < 0.001). Physician experience also influenced these outcomes, with more experienced physicians consistently using less radiation. The AP technique should be considered for FMBBs, as it reduces radiation exposure while maintaining procedural efficiency, highlighting the importance of experience in optimizing outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
透视引导下腰椎面内侧支阻滞中不同技术辐射剂量的比较:回顾性队列研究
慢性腰椎切面疼痛通常采用透视引导下的切面内侧支阻滞(FMBB)治疗。 然而,患者和临床医生的相关辐射暴露问题日益受到关注。本研究旨在比较两种技术(即斜向透视法和后-前(PA)透视法)之间的辐射剂量和透视时间,同时考察医生经验对这些指标的影响。该研究对 2024 年 1 月至 7 月期间在梅尔辛大学医院疼痛诊所接受治疗的 180 名患者进行了回顾性分析。患者被分为两组:90 名接受斜切技术(O 组),90 名接受 AP 技术(A 组)。收集了每位患者的辐射剂量和透视时间数据。与斜行技术(平均辐射剂量为 109 mGy,透视时间为 46 s)相比,AP 技术的辐射剂量明显更低(平均 66 mGy),透视时间也更短(平均 28 s)(p < 0.001)。医生的经验也会影响这些结果,经验丰富的医生使用的辐射量更少。在进行 FMBB 时应考虑使用 AP 技术,因为该技术在保持手术效率的同时减少了辐射暴露,突出了经验在优化结果方面的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Life-Basel
Life-Basel Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
1798
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Life (ISSN 2075-1729) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal of scientific studies related to fundamental themes in Life Sciences, especially those concerned with the origins of life and evolution of biosystems. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers.
期刊最新文献
Advances in Extremophile Research: Biotechnological Applications through Isolation and Identification Techniques. Avoided and Avoidable Deaths with the Use of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Italy during the First Two Years of Pandemic. Biogenic Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Mediated by Aronia melanocarpa and Their Biological Evaluation. Converging Pathways: A Review of Pulmonary Hypertension in Interstitial Lung Disease. Effects of Drying Methods on the Phytochemical Contents, Antioxidant Properties, and Anti-Diabetic Activity of Nasturtium officinale R.Br. (Betong Watercress) from Southern Thailand.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1