Article Text
Abstract
Background A neurointerventional examination of intracranial aneurysms often involves the eye lens in the primary beam of radiation.
Objective To assess and compare eye-lens doses imparted during interventional and non-interventional imaging techniques for the examination of intracranial aneurysms.
Methods We performed a phantom study on an anthropomorphic phantom (ATOM dosimetry phantom 702-D; CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA) and assessed eye-lens doses with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) type 100 (LiF:Mg, Ti) during (1) interventional (depiction of all cerebral arteries with triple 3D-rotational angiography and twice 2-plane DSA anteroposterior and lateral projections) and (2) non-interventional (CT angiography (CTA)) diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms. Eye-lens doses were calculated following recommendations of the ICRP 103. Image quality was analysed in retrospective by two experienced radiologists on the basis of non-interventional and interventional pan-angiography examinations of patients with incidental aneurysms (n=50) on a five-point Likert scale.
Results The following eye-lens doses were assessed: (1) interventional setting (triple 3D-rotational angiography and twice 2-plane DSA anteroposterior and lateral projections) 12 mGy; (2) non-interventional setting (CTA) 4.1 mGy. Image quality for depiction of intracranial aneurysms (>3 mm) was evaluated as good by both readers for both imaging techniques.
Conclusions Eye-lens doses are markedly higher during the interventional than during the non-interventional diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms. For the eye-lens dose, CTA offers considerable radiation dose savings in the diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms.
- Aneurysm
- CT Angiography
- Technique
- Intervention
- Standards
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors NG contributed to the protocol and project development, to the manuscript writing/editing; data analysis; data collection and management. UD contributed to the data analysis and data collection. MF contributed to the manuscript editing. AR contributed to the protocol/project development and the manuscript editing.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.