Rofo 2020; 192(01): 59-64
DOI: 10.1055/a-0969-2117
Interventional Radiology
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison of Radiation Exposure of the Surgeon in Minimally Invasive Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures – Radiofrequency Kyphoplasty versus Balloon Kyphoplasty with Cement Delivery Systems (CDS)

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Steffen Reißberg
1  Institute of Neuroradiology, Helios-Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany
,
Lina Lüdeke
2  Institute of Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Klinikum Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany
,
Michael Fritsch
3  Department of Neurosurgery, Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Klinikum Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

09 December 2018

25 June 2019

Publication Date:
06 November 2019 (online)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the radiation exposure of the surgeon when using two different kyphoplasty systems for the minimally invasive treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. There was a preliminary investigation study by a Belgian working group from the ORAMED project (2010), which served as the basis and showed a dose reduction for the surgeon when using a balloon kyphoplasty system with cement delivery systems (CDS).

Materials and Methods A bipedicular balloon kyphoplasty system (Medtronic GmbH) with CDS and a unipedicular radiofrequency kyphoplasty system (StabiliT, DFine Europe GmbH) were used in solitary fractures in the thoracolumbar junction in 20 patients each. The patient groups were relatively homogeneous with a mean age of 76.9 years for balloon kyphoplasty and 75 years for radiofrequency kyphoplasty. As expected, the proportion of woman was higher in both groups. The mean BMI value was higher in the radiofrequency kyphoplasty group, and the patient with the highest BMI was also in this group. The workflows were defined in three steps. The working time and the fluoroscopic time were measured in the individual work steps and the dose was measured over all work steps by TLD chips (thermoluminescence detector) on the forehead, on the X-ray apron, on both wrists and on the left ankle. The dose area product was registered for the entire procedure.

Results In step 2, the main differences were found in working time and fluoroscopy time in transit. The difference was due to the bipedicular puncture for balloon kyphoplasty and the change of the working cannula, while only a unipedicular puncture was needed in radiofrequency kyphoplasty. The total fluoroscopy time over all procedures was three times longer than in balloon kyphoplasty and this was also reflected in the dose area product, which was more than twice that. The measured surface doses for the lenses were four times higher in balloon kyphoplasty. For the left wrist, the values for balloon kyphoplasty were about 8 times higher.

Conclusion Overall, from a radiophysical perspective, the use of a unipedicular kyphoplasty system must be recommended. Should balloon kyphoplasty be used for medical reasons, all radiation protection products (lead gloves, lead glass, radiation protection goggles and CDS) should be used, the surface doses for both hands must be detected by a ring dosimeter and the lens dose must be recorded and documented by a TLD on the radiation protection goggles.

Key Points:

  • Unipedicular kyphoplasty systems would be the better options for radiation protection reasons.

  • Specific medical indications may justify the use of a bipedicular kyphoplasty system on a case-by-case basis.

  • The use of a ballon kyphoplasty system without CDS is no longer recommended.

  • When using a bipendicular kyphoplasty system, the surface doses for the hands and the lens must be documented.

Citation Format

  • Reißberg S, Lüdeke L, Fritsch M. Comparison of Radiation Exposure of the Surgeon in Minimally Invasive Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures – Radiofrequency Kyphoplasty versus Balloon Kyphoplasty with Cement Delivery Systems (CDS). Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 59 – 64