MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567375454 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554304

Patient and Surgeon Exposure to Radiation in Intraoperative CT-Based Spine Navigation

2015· article· en· W2567375454 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danny Mendelsohn, Jason Strelzow, Juliet Batke, Marcel F. Dvorak, Charles G. Fisher, John Street, Nicolas Dea

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsVancouver Spine Surgery InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyPerioperativeRadiation exposureRadiologySurgical teamRadiographyVertebrectomyNuclear medicineSurgeryDecompression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Intraoperative imaging is critical in spine surgery for determining the spinal level, visualizing alignment, and guiding implant placement. Imaging modalities include plain X-rays, fluoroscopy with C-arm and intraoperative CT scanning (O-arm). These imaging modalities emit ionizing radiation to the surgical team and the patient. The amount of radiation emitted to the patient and the surgeon with intraoperative CT-based spine navigation were compared. The impact of intraoperative CT on the use of intraoperative X-rays and postoperative X-rays and CTs was investigated. Material and Methods An ambispective review of surgical cases using intraoperative CT at Vancouver General Hospital over 1 year was performed. The number of intraoperative X-rays, fluoro and CT dosages were recorded and standardized to effective doses. The number of perioperative imaging investigations was compared with a cohort of surgical cases involving only intraoperative X-rays and fluoroscopy. A literature review was performed to enable a comparison of radiation exposure to historical values for fluoroscopic-guided spine instrumentation. Results A total of 73 surgical cases involving an average of 5.44 levels of instrumentation were reviewed. Thoracic and lumbar spine instrumentations were associated with the highest radiation emission from all modalities compared with cervical and cases (TL: 5.65 mSv vs. C: 2.19 mSv). Major deformity and degenerative cases involved more radiation exposure than trauma and oncology cases (5.81 vs. 3.54 mSv). On average, the patient was exposed to 5.9 times more radiation compared with the surgical team. Patient exposure was three times the values reported in the literature for open thoracolumbar fusions. In comparison, radiation exposure to the surgeon was reduced by 35% compared with conventional fluoroscopically guided open thoracolumbar fusions and 70% less than minimally invasive thoracolumbar fusions. The average radiation total radiation exposure to the patient was 6.05 mSv, a value less than a single lumbar CT scan (7.5–10 mSv). The use of intraoperative CT did not reduce the number of postoperative X-rays or CT scans acquired during the admission or within 1 year following surgery. Conclusion Intraoperative CT increases the radiation exposure to the patient and reduces the radiation exposure to the surgeon when compared with the fluoroscopic-guidance radiation exposure reported in the literature. Thoracolumbar instrumentations for major deformity and degenerative diagnoses are associated with the highest radiation exposure. Although intraoperative CT can improve the accuracy of spine instrumentation, surgeons should be aware of the increased radiation exposure to the patient compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guidance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207