The effect of surgeon versus technologist control of fluoroscopy on radiation exposure during pediatric ureteroscopy: A randomized trial.

Background: Fluoroscopy is commonly used during pediatric ureteroscopy (PURS) for urolithiasis, and the most important contributor to overall radiation exposure is fluoroscopy time (FT). One factor that may impact FT is who controls activation of the fluoroscope: the urologist (with a foot pedal) or the radiation technologist (as directed by the urologist). While there are plausible reasons to believe that either approach may lead to reduced FT, there are no systematic investigations of this question. We sought to compare FT with surgeon-control versus technologist control during PURS for urolithiasis.

Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov ID number: NCT02224287). Institutional Review Board approval was sought and obtained for this study. All subjects (or their legal guardians) provided informed consent. Each patient (age 5-26 years) was randomized to surgeon- or technologist-controlled fluoroscope activation. Block randomization was stratified by the surgeon. For technologist control, the surgeon verbally directed the technologist to activate the fluoroscope. For surgeon control, a foot pedal was used by the surgeon. The technologist controlled c-arm positioning, settings, and movement. The primary outcome was total FT for the procedure. Secondary outcomes included radiation exposure (entrance surface air kerma [ESAK] mGy). We also analyzed clinical and procedural predictors of FT and exposure. Mixed linear models accounting for clustering by surgeon were developed.

Results: Seventy-three procedures (5 surgeons) were included. The number of procedures per surgeon ranged from seven to 36. Forty-three percent were pre-stented. Thirty-one procedures were left side, 35 were right side, and seven were bilateral. Stones were treated in 71% of procedures (21% laser, 14% basket, and 65% laser/basket). Stone locations were distal ureter (11.5%), proximal/mid-ureter (8%), renal (69%), and ureteral/renal (11.5%). An access sheath was used in 77%. Median stone size was 8.0 mm (range 2.0-20.0). Median FT in the surgeon control group was 0.5 min (range 0.01-6.10) versus 0.55 min (range 0.10-5.50) in the technologist-control group (p = 0.284). Median ESAK in the surgeon control group was 46.02 mGy (range 5.44-3236.80) versus 46.99 mGy (range: 0.17-1039.31) in the technologist-control group (p = 0.362). Other factors associated with lower FT on univariate analysis included female sex (p = 0.015), no prior urologic surgeries (p = 0.041), shorter surgery (p = 0.011), and no access sheath (p = 0.006). On multivariable analysis only female sex (p = 0.017) and no access sheath (p = 0.049) remained significant. There was significant variation among surgeons (p < 0.0001); individual surgeon median FT ranged from 0.40 to 2.95 min.

Conclusions: Fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure are similar whether the surgeon or technologist controls fluoroscope activation. Other strategies to reduce exposure might focus on surgeon-specific factors, given the significant variation between surgeons.