BackgroundThe C-arm fluoroscope is known as the most important equipment in pain interventions. This study was conducted to investigate the completion rate of education on radiation safety, the knowledge of radiation exposure, the use of radiation protection, and so on.MethodsUnsigned questionnaires were collected from the 27 pain physicians who applied for the final test to become an expert in pain medicine in 2011. The survey was composed of 12 questions about the position of the hospital, the kind of hospital, the use of C-arm fluoroscopy, radiation safety education, knowledge of annual permissible radiation dose, use of radiation protection, and efforts to reduce radiation exposure.ResultsIn this study, although most respondents (93%) had used C-arm fluoroscopy, only 33% of the physicians completed radiation safety education. Even though nine (33%) had received education on radiation safety, none of the physicians knew the annual permissible radiation dose. In comparing the radiation safety education group and the no-education group, the rate of wearing radiation-protective glasses or goggles and the use of radiation badges or dosimeters were significantly higher in the education group. However, in the use of other protective equipment, knowledge of radiation safety, and efforts to reduce radiation exposure, there were no statistical differences between the two groups.ConclusionsThe respondents knew very little about radiation safety and had low interest in their radiation exposure. To make the use of fluoroscopy safer, additional education, as well as attention to and knowledge of practices of radiation safety are required for pain physicians.

BackgroundAlthough many clinicians know about the reducing effects of the pulsed and low-dose modes for fluoroscopic radiation when performing interventional procedures, few studies have quantified the reduction of radiation-absorbed doses (RADs). The aim of this study is to compare how much the RADs from a fluoroscopy are reduced according to the C-arm fluoroscopic modes used.MethodsWe measured the RADs in the C-arm fluoroscopic modes including 'conventional mode', 'pulsed mode', 'low-dose mode', and 'pulsed + low-dose mode'. Clinical imaging conditions were simulated using a lead apron instead of a patient. According to each mode, one experimenter radiographed the lead apron, which was on the table, consecutively 5 times on the AP views. We regarded this as one set and a total of 10 sets were done according to each mode. Cumulative exposure time, RADs, peak X-ray energy, and current, which were viewed on the monitor, were recorded.ResultsPulsed, low-dose, and pulsed + low-dose modes showed significantly decreased RADs by 32%, 57%, and 83% compared to the conventional mode. The mean cumulative exposure time was significantly lower in the pulsed and pulsed + low-dose modes than in the conventional mode. All modes had pretty much the same peak X-ray energy. The mean current was significantly lower in the low-dose and pulsed + low-dose modes than in the conventional mode.ConclusionsThe use of the pulsed and low-dose modes together significantly reduced the RADs compared to the conventional mode. Therefore, the proper use of the fluoroscopy and its C-arm modes will reduce the radiation exposure of patients and clinicians.