부산대학교 도서관

Purpose: To identify the relationship between fluoroscopy pulse rate and absorbed radiation dose. We compared absorbed radiation dose with common proxy measurements such as fluoroscopy time and C-arm reported dose.Methods: Using a simulated patient model, 60 s fluoroscopy exposures were performed using pulse rates of 30, 8, 4, 2, and 1 pulse(s) per second. Each experiment was performed with both standard and low-dose settings using a GE OEC 9800 plus C-arm. Landauer nanoDot™ OSL dosimeters were used to measure the absorbed radiation dose.Results: Fluoroscopy pulse rate and absorbed radiation dose demonstrated a linear correlation for both standard (R2 = 0.995, p < 0.001) and low-dose (R2 = 0.998, p < 0.001) settings. For any given pulse rate, using the low-dose setting reduced absorbed radiation dose by 58 ± 2.8%. Fluoroscopy time demonstrated a linear relationship with absorbed radiation dose for both standard (R2 = 0.996, p < 0.001) and low-dose (R2 = 0.991, p < 0.001) settings, but did not change with use of the low-dose setting. C-arm reported radiation dose correlated linearly with absorbed dose (R2 = 0.999) but consistently under-estimated measured values by an average of 49 ± 3.5%. Using a combination of 1 pulse-per-second and low-dose fluoroscopy, absorbed dose was reduced by 97.7 ± 0.1% compared to standard dose and 30 pulse-per-second settings.Conclusion: Absorbed radiation dose decreases linearly with fluoroscopy pulse rate during equivalent exposure times. Adjusting fluoroscopy pulse rate and utilizing low-dose settings significantly reduces overall absorbed radiation exposure by up to 98%.