Radiation exposure during ERCP: effect of a protective shield.

Objectives: To measure the radiation exposure to endoscopists, patients, and assistants during diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP and to assess the effect of a protective lead shield. Radiation dose with and without the protective lead shield was mapped in our standard fluoroscopy room.

Materials And Methods: Twenty patients undergoing ERCP were selected for this study.

Comparison of patient reactions and diagnostic quality for hysterosalpingography using ionic and nonionic contrast media.

Rationale And Objectives: We compared adverse reactions and image quality for hysterosalpingography (HSG) performed with ionic (diatrizoate meglumine combined with iodipamide meglumine [DM + IM]) and nonionic (iohexol) contrast media.

Methods: We performed a study of 95 patients who had HSG and were randomly selected to receive DM + IM or iohexol. Patients reported episodes of abdominal pain and other adverse reactions immediately and 24 hr after the procedure and categorized severity of symptoms on a subjective scale.

Radiation exposure to patients during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is rapidly becoming an accepted treatment of renal calculi. Since fluoroscopy is involved to image the stones it is important to know how much radiation the patient receives during this proCedure. Surface radiation exposure to the patient was measured in more than 300 fluoroscopic and radiographic procedures using thermoluminescent dosimeters.

Radiographic magnification of colon polyps.

Radiographic magnification was evaluated on conventional and remote control machinery using a phantom with steel rods positioned at different levels. Depending on the rod-film distance, the range of magnification was 8-47% on remote control and conventional overhead films and 11-82% on conventional fluoroscopic spot-films. Extrapolation to the colon based on cross-sectional anatomic correlation showed a 14-27% variation in the radiographic magnification depending on the machinery used, the segment of the colon considered, and the position of the patient.

Detailed per-oral small bowel examination vs. enteroclysis. Part II: Radiographic accuracy.

Accuracy of the detailed per-oral small bowel series and enteroclysis was compared in 134 patients known to have (or not have) disease of the small bowel. Overall sensitivity of the per-oral examination was 92% and specificity 94%, compared to 94% and 89%, respectively, for enteroclysis. There was no difference between the two in Crohn disease, adhesions, and metastatic disease; however, enteroclysis was thought to be more effective in delineating peritoneal adhesions in patients with obstruction.