Risk factors of radiation dose in patients undergoing peripherally-inserted central catheter procedure using conventional angiography equipment and flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy

Lee, TaeBum; Shin, Sung Wook; Choi, Dongil; Cho, Sung Ki; Hyun, Dongho; Soo, Young; Jeon, Seok-Gy; Cha, Bokyung; Bok, Eun Kyung; Kim, Seonwoo

doi:10.1177/0284185113514221

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The initial successful placement of the PICC through the use of a simple bedside technique is important because incorrect placement may cause several manipulations, increase the chance of radiation exposure and contrast material use in the angiographic suite, increase the chance of multiple chest radiographs, and delay the progress of treatment (13). The trimming method for the appropriate PICC length, in accordance with the described above, can be a very useful method for decreasing the procedure time and chance of fluoroscopic exposure (6).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Arm and Vein are more Appropriate for Single-Step, Non-Fluoroscopic, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Arm and Vein are more Appropriate for Single-Step, Non-Fluoroscopic, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PICC lines offer easy handling and can, in principle, be inserted at the bedside using ultrasound for guidance (11,12). Alternatively, PICC lines can be implanted in the interventional radiology suite, where the radiologist is able to prove correct positioning during the procedure using fluoroscopy guidance with minimal radiation exposure and adjust the length of catheter that extends outside the body (11,13). Due to the percutaneous position and a slightly higher complication rate, PICC lines are preferably placed for shorter-term use (14,15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Placement of central venous port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in the routine clinical setting of a radiology department: analysis of costs and intervention duration learning curve

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Placement of central venous port catheters (CVPS) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is an integral component of state-of-the-art patient care. In the era of increasing cost awareness, it is desirable to have more information to comprehensively assess both procedures. Purpose To perform a retrospective analysis of interventional radiologic implantation of CVPS and PICC lines in a large patient population including a cost analysis of both methods as well as an investigation the learning curve in terms of the interventions' durations. Material and Methods All CVPS and PICC line related interventions performed in an interventional radiology department during a three-year period from January 2011 to December 2013 were examined. Documented patient data included sex, venous access site, and indication for CVPS or PICC placement. A cost analysis including intervention times was performed based on the prorated costs of equipment use, staff costs, and expenditures for disposables. The decrease in intervention duration in the course of time conformed to the learning curve. Results In total, 2987 interventions were performed by 16 radiologists: 1777 CVPS and 791 PICC lines. An average implantation took 22.5 ± 0.6 min (CVPS) and 10.1 ± 0.9 min (PICC lines). For CVPS, this average time was achieved by seven radiologists newly learning the procedures after performing 20 CVPS implantations. Total costs per implantation were €242 (CVPS) and €201 (PICC lines). Conclusion Interventional radiologic implantations of CVPS and PICC lines are well-established procedures, easy to learn by residents, and can be implanted at low costs.

show abstract

Exposure of medical staff to radiation during osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fracture: descriptive analysis and comparison of different devices

Siedlecki

Gauthé

Gillibert

et al. 2017

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical staff receives significantly different doses depending on their position in relation to the radiation source. Operating time and fluoroscopy time are the modifiable factors that affect the radiation dose. The radiation doses received by the different members of the medical teams involved in proximal femur osteosynthesis procedures all fall below the doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements.

show abstract

Risk factors of radiation dose in patients undergoing peripherally-inserted central catheter procedure using conventional angiography equipment and flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy

Abstract: PICC insertion can be performed using flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy instead of a conventional angiography machine. Image quality and fluoroscopy time were not different between the two systems and the use of C-arm fluoroscopy significantly reduced radiation dose.

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Which Arm and Vein are more Appropriate for Single-Step, Non-Fluoroscopic, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion?

Which Arm and Vein are more Appropriate for Single-Step, Non-Fluoroscopic, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion?

Placement of central venous port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in the routine clinical setting of a radiology department: analysis of costs and intervention duration learning curve

Exposure of medical staff to radiation during osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fracture: descriptive analysis and comparison of different devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About