Influence of resident involvement on fluoroscopy time and ionizing radiation exposure in fluoroscopy‐guided spinal procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fluoroscopic guidance has become the standard for a variety of medical procedures. Mastering these techniques requires practice, which may entail additional radiation for patients and providers. Despite their widespread use, the literature examining factors influencing radiation exposure in fluoroscopically guided pain procedures is scarce. Objective To evaluate the influence of resident involvement on radiation exposure during fluoroscopy‐guided spinal interventions. Design Single‐center, observational study. Setting Outpatient physiatry clinic in a teaching hospital. Patients All patients who received cervical or lumbar facet block(s) (FBs), transforaminal epidural steroid injection(s) (TFESIs) without digital subtraction, or a caudal epidural (CE) during the study period were included. Interventions Resident involvement in the procedures: absent, observing, or participating. Main Outcome Measures Machine‐indicated fluoroscopy time (seconds) and radiation dose (milligrays [mGy]). Results Two hundred ninety six procedures were included: 188 FBs (58 cervical, 130 lumbar), 48 CEs, and 60 TFESIs. For lumbar FBs, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose increased significantly when residents performed them (mean time = 24.5 s, confidence interval [CI] = 20.4–28.7; mean dose = 3.53 mGy, CI = 2.57–4.49) compared to when they observed (mean time = 9.9 s, CI = 8.1–11.7; mean dose = 1.28 mGy, CI = 0.98–1.59) (mean difference: time = 14.63 s, CI = 9.31–19.94; dose = 2.25 mGy, CI = 1.17–3.33) and were absent during the procedure (mean time = 12.9 s, CI = 11.1–14.6; mean dose = 1.65 mGy, CI = 1.40–1.89) (mean difference: time = 11.67 s, CI = 7.35–15.98; dose = 1.88 mGy, CI = 1.01–2.76). In the case of TFESIs, time, but not dose, increased significantly when residents observed (mean time = 39.1 s, CI = 30.7–47.6; mean dose = 6.73 mGy, CI = 3.39–10.07) compared to when they were absent (mean time = 27.1 s, CI = 22.4–31.8; mean dose = 4.41 mGy, CI = 3.06–5.76 (mean difference: time = 11.99 s, CI = 1.37–22.61; dose = 2.32 mGy, CI = −1.20–5.84). Finally, resident involvement did not significantly affect the outcomes for CEs ( p time = .032, p dose = .74) and cervical FBs ( p time = .64, p dose = .68). Conclusion Resident participation affected lumbar FBs the most, with an increase in both fluoroscopy time and radiation dose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".