Radiation Exposure With Use of Mini C. ARM

¶ … radiation received by the surgeon during the use of a mini-c-arm device and to compare this amount with documented measurements associated with the large c-arm device" (p. 13). Previous research had determined that the perceived increased risks had been associated with the large c-arm device but there were no current studies available that had developed such findings with the mini c-arm device. The purpose of the present study was also "to quantify the amount of scattered radiation that is present during a typical mini-c-arm examination in order to determine 1) the relative risk of radiation exposure to the surgeon with extended use, 2) whether the surgeon positioning is pertinent, and 3) whether protective shielding should be employed" (p. 14). The researchers looked at the positioning of "anthropomorphic phantoms as a patient might be positioned within the c-arm for a typical forearm or ankle examination" (p. 14). Researchers also looked at parallel measurements at various radial distances from the phantom which "represented the amount of scattered radiation to which the operating orthopedic surgeon is exposed" (p. 14). The study also determined radiation technique factors based upon the positioning of either the forearm or the ankle that was being studied.

The type of research study design that was used seemed to be quantitative in nature due to the fact that the data gathered was entirely numerical. The data were precise measurements of exposure to radiation based upon positioning and length of exposure; it had nothing whatsoever to do with qualitative perceptions, thoughts, feelings or ideas. Instead the data was purely numerical.

The study's methodology was also purely quantitative as it dealt with collecting data that was numerical, as in what percentage of radiation exposure would the surgeon be exposed to, based upon the positioning, distance and type of c-arm intervention that was taking place.

The significance of the research in a practice setting is that (as stated by the study) "it is clear that the mini-c-arm is safer than the large c-arm and is associated with substantially lower occupational exposures as measured both within the beam and all distances from the beam" (p. 16). Additionally, the researchers determined that "a surgeon using the mini-c-arm and positioned at a working distance of less than 20 cm from the beam will not be exposed to substantially high radiation levels" (p. 16). This is very good news for surgeons who routinely work with mini-c-arms (especially when compared to using large c-arms). The researchers state that it would be very difficult for any surgeon to be exposed (on a yearly basis) to enough radiation using the mini-c-arm to cause any level of concern whatsoever. In fact, the results are so conclusive that the researchers "strongly advise the use of the mini-c-arm whenever clinically feasible" (p. 17).