Correction: Radiation exposure dose and influencing factors during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Patient Radiation Exposure during Enteroscopy-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Surgically Altered Anatomy (with Video)

BACKGROUND

Fluoroscopy must be used cautiously during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Radiation exposure data in patients with surgically altered anatomy undergoing enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (EA-ERCP) are scarce.

METHODS

34 consecutive EA-ERCP procedures were compared with 68 conventional ERCP (C-ERCP) procedures. Patient and procedure characteristics and radiation data were collected.

RESULTS

Surgical reconstructions were gastrojejunostomy, Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy, Roux-en-Y total gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and Whipple's duodenopancreatectomy. Procedures were restricted to biliary indications. Mean fluoroscopy time was comparable in both groups (370 ± 30 s EA-ERCP vs. 393 ± 40 s C-ERCP, p = 0.7074), whereas total mean radiation dose was lower in EA-ERCP (83 ± 6 mGy) compared to C-ERCP (110 ± 11 mGy, p = 0.0491) and dose area product (DAP) was higher in EA-ERCP (2216 ± 173 µGy*m2) compared to C-ERCP (1600 ± 117 µGy*m2, p = 0.0038), as was total procedure time (77 ± 5 min vs. 39 ± 3 min, p < 0.0001). Enteroscope insertion to reach the bile duct during EA-ERCP took 28 ± 4 min, ranging from 4 to 90 min. These results indicate that C-ERCP procedures are generally more complex, needing magnified fluoroscopy, whereas EA-ERCP procedures take more time for enteroscope insertion under wide field fluoroscopic guidance (increased DAP) with less complex ERCP manipulation (lower total radiation dose).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation exposure during EA-ERCP in surgically altered anatomy is different as compared to C-ERCP. EA-ERCP takes longer with a higher DAP because of the enteroscope insertion, but with lower total radiation dose because these ERCP procedures are usually less complex.

How should radiation exposure be handled in fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures in the field of gastroenterology?

Fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures (FGEPs) are rapidly gaining popularity in the field of gastroenterology. Radiation is a well-known health hazard. Gastroenterologists who perform FGEPs are required to protect themselves, patients, as well as nurses and radiologists engaged in examinations from radiation exposure. To achieve this, all gastroenterologists must first understand and adhere to the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication. In particular, it is necessary to understand the three principles of radiation protection (Justification, Optimization, and Dose Limits), the As Low As Reasonably Achievable principle, and the Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) according to them. This review will mainly explain the three principles of radiation exposure protection, DRLs, and occupational radiological protection in interventional procedures while introducing related findings. Gastroenterologists must gain knowledge of radiation exposure protection and keep it updated.

Comparison of Radiation Exposure between Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy and Hepaticogastrostomy with Antegrade Stenting

Fluoroscopy forms an essential part of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting (EUS-HGAS). To date, no study has assessed and compared radiation exposure between EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS. This study aimed to compare the radiation exposure parameters between EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS. This retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-HGS or EUS-HGAS from October 2017 to March 2019. The air kerma (AK: mGy), kerma–area product (KAP: Gycm²), fluoroscopy time (FT: min), and procedure time (PT: min) were assessed and compared between the two procedures. Altogether, 45 and 24 patients underwent EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS, respectively. The median AK, KAP, FT, and PT were higher in the EUS-HGAS group than in the EUS-HGS group. A comparison revealed no difference in the technical success rate, complications rate, adverse event occurrence rate, and re-intervention rate between both procedures. This is the first report in which radiation exposure was used as a comparative parameter between EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS. This study revealed that radiation exposure is significantly higher in EUS-HGAS than in EUS-HGS. Increased awareness on radiation exposure is warranted among gastroenterologists so that they choose the procedure with lower radiation exposure in cases where both procedures are indicated.

The radiation doses and radiation protection on the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures

Although many interventions involving radiation exposure have been replaced to endoscopic procedure in the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary fields, there remains no alternative for enteroscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which requires the use of radiation. In this review, we discuss the radiation doses and protective measures of endoscopic procedures, especially for ERCP. For the patient radiation dose, the average dose area product for diagnostic ERCP was 14-26 Gy.cm², while it increased to as high as 67-89 Gy.cm² for therapeutic ERCP. The corresponding entrance skin doses for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP were 90 and 250 mGy, respectively. The mean effective doses were 3- 6 mSv for diagnostic ERCP and 12-20 mSv for therapeutic ERCP. For the occupational radiation dose, the typical doses were 94 μGy and 75 μGy for the eye and neck, respectively. However, with an over-couch-type X-ray unit, the eye and neck doses reached as high as 550 and 450 μGy, with maximal doses of up to 2.8 and 2.4 mGy/procedure, respectively.A protective lead shield was effective for an over couch X-ray tube unit. It lowered scattered radiation by up to 89.1% in a phantom study. In actual measurements, the radiation exposure of the endoscopist closest to the unit was reduced to approximately 12%. In conclusion, there is a clear need for raising awareness among medical personnel involved endoscopic procedures to minimise radiation risks to both the patients and staff.

Use of Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Radiation Exposure at Fluoroscopy-Guided Endoscopic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Exposure to ionizing radiation remains a hazard for patients and healthcare providers. We evaluated the utility of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled fluoroscopy system to minimize radiation exposure during image-guided endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures. Patients underwent interventions using either conventional or AI-equipped fluoroscopy system that uses ultrafast collimation to limit radiation exposure to the region of interest. The main outcome measure was to compare radiation exposure with patients, which was measured by dose area product. Secondary outcome was radiation scatter to endoscopy personnel measured using dosimeter.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients who underwent procedures using traditional (n = 50) or AI-enabled (n = 50) fluoroscopy systems, there was no significant difference in demographics, body mass index, procedural type, and procedural or fluoroscopy time between the conventional and the AI-enabled fluoroscopy systems. Radiation exposure to patients was lower (median dose area product 2,178 vs 5,708 mGym, P = 0.001) and scatter effect to endoscopy personnel was less (total deep dose equivalent 0.28 vs 0.69 mSv; difference of 59.4%) for AI-enabled fluoroscopy as compared to conventional system. On multivariate linear regression analysis, after adjusting for patient characteristics, procedural/fluoroscopy duration, and type of fluoroscopy system, only AI-equipped fluoroscopy system (coefficient 3,331.9 [95% confidence interval: 1,926.8-4,737.1, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy duration (coefficient 813.2 [95% confidence interval: 640.5-985.9], P < 0.001) were associated with radiation exposure.

DISCUSSION

The AI-enabled fluoroscopy system significantly reduces radiation exposure to patients and scatter effect to endoscopy personnel (see Graphical abstract, Supplementary Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B461).