Radiation-Shielding Devices: The Best Combination for Spine Interventional Procedures.

PURPOSE: Although many studies have examined the efficiency of various protective devices for reducing the dose of radiation exposure to physicians during interventional pain procedures, no study has compared the protective effect of these devices when they are used in combination. The purpose of this prospective experimental study was to determine the best combination of radiation-shielding devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using anthropomorphic phantoms of a physician and patient, we measured the radiation protection efficiency (RPE) of each of the following protection methods and in combination during C-arm-guided simulated lumbar epidural injection: (a) personal protective equipment (PPE), (b) bedside curtain shield (Curtain), (c) x-ray tube filter (Filter), and (d) fluoroscopic collimation method (Collimation). We measured exposure doses using personal electronic dosimeters at the eye, thyroid, and gonad levels for 1 minute. Each experiment was repeated 15 times. RESULTS: The radiation exposure dose and RPE with the best single-, double-, and triple-protection methods were as follows: PPE for the single-protection method (11.82 µSv/min, 80.04%), PPE + Collimation for the double-combination method (4.68 µSv/min, 92.09%), and PPE + Collimation + Curtain for the triple-combination method (3.08 µSv/min, 93.39%). Additionally, PPE + Collimation + Curtain + Filter for the quadruple-combination method resulted in a radiation exposure and RPE of 2.91 µSv/min and 93.61%, respectively, compared with nonprotection. CONCLUSIONS: The best single-, double-, and triple-protection method was PPE, PPE + Collimation, and PPE + Collimation + Curtain, respectively. While preparing protective equipment, we recommend prioritizing equipment in this order.

Comparison of clinical efficacy in epidural steroid injections through transforaminal or parasagittal approaches.

BACKGROUND: The transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injection (ESI) is suggested as more effective than the interlaminar (IL) route due to higher delivery of medication at the anterior epidural space. However, serious complications such as spinal cord injury and permanent neural injury have been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness, technical ease, and safety of the TF and parasagittal IL (PIL) ESI. METHODS: A total of 72 patients were randomized to either the PIL group (n = 41) or the TF group (n = 31) under fluoroscopic guidance. Patients were evaluated for effective pain relief by the numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (%) before and 2 weeks after the ESI. The presence of concordant paresthesia, anterior epidural spread, total procedure time, and exposed radiation dose were also evaluated. RESULTS: Both the PIL and TF approach produced similar clinically significant improvements in pain and level of disability. Among the 72 patients, 27 PIL (66%) and 20 TF (64%) patients showed concordant paresthesia while 14 (34%) and 11 (36%) patients in the same respective order showed disconcordant or no paresthesia. Radiation dose and total procedure time required were compared; the PIL group showed a significantly lower radiation dose (30.2 ± 12 vs. 80.8 ± 26.8 [Cgy/cm2]) and shorter procedure time (96.2 ± 31 vs. 141.6 ± 30 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: ESI under fluoroscopic guidance with PIL or TF approach were effective in reducing the NRS and ODI. PIL ESI was a technically easier and simple method compared to TF ESI.