A comparative study of radiation dose and screening time between mini C-arm and standard fluoroscopy in elective foot and ankle surgery

Mini C‐arm: faster, cheaper, safer?

“…performed the most comparable study to ours in 2011. They analysed 127 foot and ankle cases and noted a DAP which was 53% lower for the mini C‐arm . They used the same Fluoroscan and radiation measure (DAP) as our study but of note their mean DAP with the Fluoroscan was 3.46 Gy.cm 2 , two orders of magnitude higher than our mean (0.013 Gy.cm 2 ).…”

“…Total screening time in seconds and dose‐area product (DAP) were selected as the measures of radiation exposure. Both are standard measurements in fluoroscopy and automatically recorded by the two machines. Measurement of radiation dose was performed by the machines’ built‐in DAP metres.…”

“…4 The smaller radius of the mini C-arm allows lower beam power and greater collimation. 9 Surgical experience has been shown to be inversely proportional to radiation exposure during fluoroscopy. 10 Our institution is a tertiary 300-bed paediatric and obstetric hospital.…”

Review of the Clinical Use of Fluoroscopy in Hand Surgery

“…In real word usage however, the difference is less clear-cut. Dawe et al 34) compared a mini C-arm to a traditional II on 127 foot and ankle procedures and found a Dose Area Product (DAP) of almost 50% less in favour of the mini C-arm with equivalent screening time. Singer, Herron and Herron 35) imaged a hand surrogate and using dosimeters found 53-70% higher patient exposure for the mini C-arm but a tube current (at the XR source) which was 13 to 14 times lower than the traditional machine.…”

“…33) The smaller radius allows greater collimation and a lower beam power. 34) These factors were though to permit usage of the mini C-arm without lead shielding. In real word usage however, the difference is less clear-cut.…”