My question is, is / has / was this done with X-ray? CAT scan? MR? or other?
I am just inquisitive regarding the radiation doses from the procedure.
- Family Elder
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:00 pm
- Location: Dayton, Ohio USA
The Flouroscope is at the operating room bedside and it hovers over you so when they put dye in they can see the veins. The f-scope is a kind of real time x-ray deal.
I think you are asking if they have little cameras inside the veins to see and I assume that they might for some kinds of repairs but it is not needed for stents and balloons.
If they are going to be nipping something out and repairing a valve or something I assume might they have one of those itty bitty cameras that goes inside like they use for a "keyhole" knee surgery....but I do NOT actually know! The one for the knee surgery is way too big to fit in a vein, and it goes in to one hole while another hole holds a instrument that can do a repair.
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-7318-0.html This is my regimen thread
http://www.ccsvibook.com Read my book published by McFarland Health topics
http://www.google.com/search?q=Fluorosc ... tion+stent
Seems that there are ways they can reduce the amount of radiation the patient is exposed to (ie http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/con ... /89/6/2710)The radiation-induced cancer risk may be considerable for younger individuals undergoing transluminal angioplasty with stent placement.
Would love to hear more about this from anyone more knowledgeable ... kinda creepy, especially so close to the brain!
I found an interesting study that specifically dealt with Xray/fluoroscopic exposure to patients undergoing coronary angiography. Seems close enough for government work insofar as the catheterization is from the femoral artery etc etc.
Seems the exposure is also "dialed in" to the patient size, one interesting tidbit that popped up, the machines made in India were dialed in for the typical Indian patient and may need to be adjusted up or down for the average patient in whatever country they were going to, if I read that correctly. Also the more tissue that it goes through, the more dosing is needed.
I'll post up some cherry picked parts and link to the study too. Interesting read.
Much more at the link. <shortened url>
Major factors contributing to the overall radiation dose would be from the use of high dose rates present in these machines and the length of the fluoroscopy. The cardiovascular machines dedicated for cardiac procedures are invariably imported from developed countries and the default preset exposure settings are based on the patient size of those specified locations. Since the weight and body surface area on Indian patients are lower in comparison with patients of other countries, it would be advisable to setup appropriate dose modes for the Indian population. To achieve low dose levels during cardiac procedures, the image intensifier entrance dose rates could be reduced according to the body mass index of the Indian population. However, radiation intensive angulations do not enable substantially better image quality despite increasing image intensifier dose levels. In the current study also, optimization did not result in any significant reduction of image quality. It is noteworthy in this context that thin patients should be examined at low dose levels. Selection of appropriate protocols (optimized and factors meant for pediatric patients) with corresponding dose levels should be encouraged in order to obtain radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) without sacrificing the image quality.
Though the radiation dose imparted to patients does not present any alarming situation with regard to ill-effects of radiation, it would be prudent to optimize radiation dose to patients undergoing CA. Since there is a frequent change in the various imaging modalities, reference dose levels should be audited on a time to time basis so as to keep the doses as low as reasonably practical. Reduction of radiation dose to patients and consequent minimization of overall radiation dose during CA in the current study was due to use of adequate copper filters with optimal exposure parameters.
- ms taking away our mobility..
- ms making our life miserable..
- ms genrally sucks..
vs risking some radiation for a potential 'improvement' (i was looking for a good word similar to cure, but not cure!) --- priceless!
lol - just saying some radiation risk is worth the potential!
And yes, I do understand its the choice between two evils. I just believe in having your eyes open and knowing all the facets, and making an informed decision (no matter how simple the choice may seem )
I also wanted to find out a little of actual numbers as to the level of radiation. I read on the Wiki I think, that a CAT scan of the torso comes in at somewhere between 50 to 100 chest X-rays equivalent. I have already had a CAT scan of my lungs (and 1 chest X-ray). As far as I understand, radiation is a cumulative thing, which as you accumulate, your risk for "side-effects" accumulate. From my simple understanding, it's not a case of "loosing" radiation over time, its a case of the damage accumulated; the more radiation experienced, the more damage, the more chance that damage could develop into something like a cancer. Its a numbers thing.
If the operation itself was fairly low in radiation, I would be more comfortable with a CAT scan now, instead of waiting for the MRI protocol.
I guess the real question would be "anyone know the rough X-ray equivalence of the flouroscope during the stenting?"
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 0 Replies
- 697 Views
Last post by frodo
Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:44 am
- 1 Replies
- 72 Views
Last post by ElliotB
Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:08 pm
- 7 Replies
- 404 Views
Last post by jimmylegs
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:01 pm
- 4 Replies
- 629 Views
Last post by jimmylegs
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:26 am
- 2 Replies
- 90 Views
Last post by frodo
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:26 am