Abstract
Background For the acquisition of intraoperative fluoroscopic images, standard projections have to be manually adjusted. This process resembles a trial-and-error process and is therefore time-consuming and leads to increased radiation exposure for both patient and staff. In addition, the standard projections adjusted are subject to intra- and interindividual variance. However, to date, only very limited data exist in the literature quantifying the time and radiation exposure caused by the process of manually setting standard projections as well as the intra- and interindividual variance for the manual adjustment of standard projections.
Material and Methods A.p. and lateral standard projections of the vertebral bodies of two fresh-frozen specimen were manually adjusted by two examiners with a different level of experience using a mobile C-arm. The time needed for manual adjustment as well as the number of X-ray shots acquired and the radiation dose caused during this process were documented. Intra- and interindividual variance of the central beam, the orbital rotation and angulation of the C-arm was analyzed.
Results The median time needed was 75.9s, with no significant difference between the examiners (p=0.13). 7.1 x-ray images were acquired in average to reach subjective satisfaction with the standard projection with significantly more x-ray shots for the lateral standard (p=0.04) and for the examiner with less experience (p<0.001). Accordingly, the dose caused was more than 50% higher than for the experienced examiner (p=0.01). Mean interindividual variance of the central beam was 7.6° while the intraindividual variance was 4.2°.
Conclusion In summary, this study investigated the interrater and intrarater variance for standard manual level setting in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Additionally, we were able to quantify the time and number of radiographs required for this procedure for different levels of experience, as well as the resulting radiation dose.
Competing Interest Statement
PAG and JF serve as unpaid members of a consulting/advisory board for Siemens Healthineers. The other authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Forms are available for all authors.
Funding Statement
The research group had grants/grants pending and technical support from Siemens Healthineers (Erlangen, Germany). The funders had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, nor the writing of the manuscript and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Rhineland-Palatine Medical Association (application number 2020-15423). All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Declarations
Funding The research group had grants/grants pending and technical support from Siemens Healthineers (Erlangen, Germany). The funders had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, nor the writing of the manuscript and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Conflicts of Interest PAG and JF serve as unpaid members of a consulting/advisory board for Siemens Healthineers. The other authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Forms are available for all authors.
Ethics Approval The study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Rhineland-Palatine Medical Association (application number 2020-15423). All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent The human specimens were provided by Rimasys GmbH (Cologne, Germany). The body donors consented to the donation of their bodies for research purposes during their lifetime.
Availability of Data and Material All data and statistics are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data Availability
All data and statistics are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.
