| Title |
Radiation exposure using the O-arm® surgical imaging system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-016-4773-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Pitteloud, Axel Gamulin, Christophe Barea, Jerome Damet, Guillaume Racloz, Marta Sans-Merce |
| Abstract |
This study was conducted to characterise the O-arm(®) surgical imaging system in terms of patient organ doses and medical staff occupational exposure during three-dimensional thoracic spine and pelvic examinations. An anthropomorphic phantom was used to evaluate absorbed organ doses during a three-dimensional thoracic spine scan and a three-dimensional pelvic scan with the O-arm(®). Staff occupational exposure was evaluated by constructing an ambient dose cartography of the operating theatre during a three-dimensional pelvic scan as well as using an anthropomorphic phantom to simulate the O-arm(®) operator. Patient organ doses ranged from 30 ± 4 μGy to 20.0 ± 3.0 mGy and 4 ± 1 μGy to 6.7 ± 1.0 mGy for a three-dimensional thoracic spine and pelvic examination, respectively. For a single three-dimensional acquisition, the maximum ambient equivalent dose at 2 m from the iso-centre was 11 ± 1 μSv. Doses delivered to the patient during a three-dimensional thoracic spine image acquisition were found to be significant with the O-arm(®), but lower than those observed with a standard computed tomography examination. The detailed dose cartography allows for the optimisation of medical staff positioning within the operating theatre while imaging with the O-arm(®). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 32% |
| Engineering | 7 | 16% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2017.
All research outputs
#17,883,247
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,283
of 4,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,369
of 321,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#26
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,662 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.