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.
- CT Angiography
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.