Imaging & Therapeutic Technology

Fluoroscopy: Patient Radiation Exposure Issues

Fluoroscopic procedures (particularly prolonged interventional procedures) may involve high patient radiation doses. The radiation dose depends on the type of examination, the patient size, the equipment, the technique, and many other factors. The performance of the fluoroscopy system with respect to radiation dose is best characterized by the receptor entrance exposure and skin entrance exposure rates, which should be assessed at regular intervals. Management of patient exposure involves not only measurement of these rates but also clinical monitoring of patient doses. Direct monitoring of patient skin doses during procedures is highly desirable, but current methods still have serious limitations. Skin doses may be reduced by using intermittent exposures, grid removal, last image hold, dose spreading, beam filtration, pulsed fluoroscopy, and other dose reduction techniques. Proper training of fluoroscopic operators, understanding the factors that influence radiation dose, and use of various dose reduction techniques may allow effective management of patient dose.


  • 1 Shope TB. Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy. RadioGraphics 1996; 16:1195-1199. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 FDA Public Health Advisory. avoidance of serious x-ray induced skin injuries to patients during fluoroscopically guided procedures. Rockville, Md: Food and Drug Administration, September 9, 1994. Google Scholar
  • 3 Archer BR, Wagner LK. Protecting patients by training physicians in fluoroscopic radiation management. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2000; 1:32-37. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sovik E, Klow NE, Hellesnes J, Lykke J. Radiation-induced skin injury after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: case report. Acta Radiol 1996; 37(3 pt 1):305-306. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Knautz MA, Abele DC, Reynolds TL. Radiodermatitis after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. South Med J 1997; 90:352-356. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lichtenstein DA, Klapholtz L, Vardy DA, et al. Chronic radiodermatitis following cardiac catheterization. Arch Dermatol 1996; 132:663-667. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rosenthal LS, Beck TJ, Williams JR, et al. Acute radiation dermatitis following radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997; 20:1834-1839. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vano E, Gonzalez L, Beneytez F, Moreno F. Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimized interventional radiology laboratories. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:728-733. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA. Potential biological effects following high x-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994; 5:71-84. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Strauss KJ. Clinical radiation dose monitoring. In: Balter S, Shope TB, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in physics—physical and technical aspects of angiography and interventional radiology. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1995; 171-187. Google Scholar
  • 11 Boone JM, Pfeiffer DE, Strauss KJ, et al. A survey of fluoroscopic exposure rates: AAPM Task Group No. 11 Report. Med Phys 1993; 20:789-794. Google Scholar
  • 12 Chakraborty DP. Routine fluoroscopic quality control. In: Seibert JA, Barnes GT, Gould RG, eds. Specification, acceptance testing and quality control of diagnostic x-ray imaging equipment. Medical Physics Monograph no. 20. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1994; 569-596. Google Scholar
  • 13 Maynard H. Digital fluoro acceptance testing: the AAPM approach. In: Seibert JA, Barnes GT, Gould RG, eds. Specification, acceptance testing and quality control of diagnostic x-ray imaging equipment. Medical Physics Monograph no. 20. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1994; 709-730. Google Scholar
  • 14 Chu RYL, Fisher J, Archer BR, et al. Standardized methods for measuring diagnostic x-ray exposures AAPM Report no. 31. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1990. Google Scholar
  • 15 Rosenthal LS, Mahesh M, Beck TJ, et al. Predictors of fluoroscopy time and estimated radiation exposure during radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures: a multicenter experience. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82:451-458. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Geise RA, O’Dea TJ. Radiation dose in interventional fluoroscopic procedures. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50:173-184. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Heyd RL, Kopecky KK, Sherman S, et al. Radiation exposure to patients and personnel during interventional ERCP at a teaching institution. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44:287-292. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Leibovic SJ, Caldicott WJ. Gastrointestinal fluoroscopy: patient dose and methods for its reduction. Br J Radiol 1983; 56:715-719. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rao PN, Faulkner K, Sweeney JK, et al. Radiation dose to patient and staff during percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Br J Urol 1987; 59:508-512. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McParland BJ. Entrance skin dose estimates derived from dose-area product measurements in interventional radiological procedures. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:1288-1295. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McParland BJ. A study of patient radiation doses in interventional radiological procedures. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:175-185. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ruiz-Cruces R, Perez-Martinez M, Martin-Palanca A, et al. Patient dose in radiologically guided interventional vascular procedures: conventional versus digital systems. Radiology 1997; 205:385-393. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Jones DG, Fisher ES. The measurement of energy imparted to patients during diagnostic x-ray examinations using the Diamentor exposure-area product meter. Phys Med Biol 1984; 29:1199-1208. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Le Heron JC. Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical x-ray examinations from measurements of the dose-area-product. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37:2117-2126. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gkanatsios NA, Huda W, Peters KR, Freeman JA. Evaluation of an on-line patient exposure meter in neuroradiology. Radiology 1997; 203:837-842. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 26 O’Dea TJ, Geise RA, Ritenour ER. The potential for radiation-induced skin damage in interventional neuroradiological procedures: a review of 522 cases using automated dosimetry. Med Phys 1999; 26:2027-2033. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cusma JT, Bell MR, Wondrow MA, et al. Real-time measurement of radiation exposure to patients during diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous interventional procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33:427-435. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Coulden RA, Readman LP. Coronary angiography: an analysis of radiographic practice in the UK. Br J Radiol 1993; 66:327-331. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pattee PL, Johns PC, Chambers RJ. Radiation risk to patients from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22:1044-1051. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gray JE, Swee RG. The elimination of grids during intensified fluoroscopy and photofluoro spot imaging. Radiology 1982; 144:426-429. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Drury P, Robinson A. Fluoroscopy without the grid: a method of reducing the radiation dose. Br J Radiol 1980; 53:93-99. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wilson DL, Xue P, Aufrichtig R. Perception of fluoroscopy last-image hold. Med Phys 1994; 21:1875-1883. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nicholson R, Tuffee F, Uthappa MC. Skin sparing in interventional radiology: the effect of copper filtration. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:36-42. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Aufrichtig R, Xue P, Thomas CW, Gilmore GC, Wilson DL. Perceptual comparison of pulsed and continuous fluoroscopy. Med Phys 1994; 21:245-256. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Geise RA, Eubig C, Franz S, et al. Managing the use of fluoroscopy in medical institutions AAPM Report no. 58. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1998. Google Scholar
  • 36 Gray JE. Education and training of physicians and other staff: the time has come for education, credentialing and privileging for the use of x-rays. Annual Meeting Proceedings no. 21. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1999; 397-416. Google Scholar
  • 37 Limacher MC, Douglas PS, Germano G, et al. Radiation safety in the practice of cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31:892-913. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cardella JF, Casarella WJ, DeWeese JA, et al. Optimal resources for the examination and endovascular treatment of the peripheral and visceral vascular systems: AHA Intercouncil report on peripheral and visceral angiographic and interventional laboratories. Circulation 1994; 89:1481-1493. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Thompson WL, Dyke JP, Buonocore E. Using the World-Wide Web to train and certify physicians in the safe use of fluoroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:1263-1264. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Swayne LC, Lam SCP, Filippone AL, Ambrose RB. Credentialing of crossover privileges in fluoroscopy for nonradiologists. Radiology 1994; 190:281-282. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: July 2001