Aims. To benchmark the radiation dose to patients during the course of treatment for a spinal deformity. Methods. Our radiation dose database identified 25,745 exposures of 6,017 children (under 18 years of age) and adults treated for a spinal deformity between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2016. Patients were divided into surgical (974 patients) and non-surgical (5,043 patients) cohorts. We documented the number and doses of ionizing radiation imaging events (radiographs, CT scans, or intraoperative fluoroscopy) for each patient. All the doses for plain radiographs, CT scans, and intraoperative fluoroscopy were combined into a single effective dose by a medical physicist (milliSivert (mSv)). Results. There were more ionizing radiation-based imaging events and higher radiation dose exposures in the surgical group than in the non-surgical group (p < 0.001). The difference in effective dose for children between the surgical and non-surgical groups was statistically significant, the surgical group being significantly higher (p < 0.001). This led to a higher estimated risk of cancer induction for the surgical group (1:222 surgical vs 1:1,418 non-surgical). However, the dose difference for adults was not statistically different between the surgical and non-surgical groups. In all cases the effective dose received by all cohorts was significantly higher than that from exposure to natural background radiation. Conclusion. The treatment of spinal deformity is radiation-heavy. The dose exposure is several times higher when surgical treatment is undertaken. Clinicians should be aware of this and review their practices in order to reduce the radiation dose where possible. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):1–7

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Advances in orthopaedic surgery have led to minimally invasive techniques to decrease patient morbidity by minimizing surgical exposure, but also limits direct visualization. This has led to the increased use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for fracture management. Unfortunately, these procedures require the operating surgeon to stay in close proximity to the patient, thus being exposed to radiation scatter. The current National Council on Radiation Protection recommends no more than 50 mSv of radiation exposure to avoid ill-effects. Risks associated with radiation exposure include cataracts, skin, breast and thyroid cancer, and leukemia. Despite radiation protection measures, there is overwhelming evidence of radiation-related diseases in orthopaedic surgeons. The risk of developing cancer (e.g. thyroid carcinoma and breast cancer) is approximately eight times higher than in unexposed workers. Despite this knowledge, there is a paucity of evidence on radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery residents, therefore the goal of this study is to quantify radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery residents. We hypothesize that orthopaedic surgery residents are exposed to a significant amount of radiation throughout their training. We specifically aim to: 1) quantify the amount of radiation exposure throughout a Canadian orthopaedic residency training program and 2) determine the variability in resident radiation exposure by rotation assignment and year of training. This ongoing prospective cohort study includes all local orthopaedic surgery residents who meet eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria: 1) adult residents in an orthopaedic surgery residency program. Exclusion criteria: 1) female residents who are pregnant, and 2) residents in a non-surgical year (i.e. leave of absence, research, Masters/PhD). After completion of informed consent, each eligible resident will wear a dosimeter to measure radiation exposure in a standardized fashion. Dosimeters will be worn on standardized lanyards underneath lead protection in their left chest pocket during all surgeries that require radiation protection. Control dosimeters will be worn on the outside of each resident's scrub cap for comparison. Dosimeter readings will then be reported on a monthly and rotational basis. All data will be collected on a pre-developed case report form. All data will be de-identified and stored on a secure electronic database (REDCap). In addition to monthly and rotational dosimeter readings, residents will also report sex, height, level of training, parental status, and age for secondary subgroup analyses. Residents will also report if they have personalized lead or other protective equipment, including lead glasses. Resident compliance with dosimeter use will be measured by self report of >80% use on operative days. Interim analysis will be performed at the 6-month time point and data collection will conclude at the 1 year time point. Data collection began in July 2018 and interim 6-month results will be available for presentation at the CORA annual meeting in June 2019. This is the first prospective study quantifying radiation exposure in Canadian orthopaedic residents and the results will provide valuable information for all Canadian orthopaedic training programs

Radiological investigations are essential in the work-up of patients presenting with non-arthritic hip pain, to allow close review of the complex anatomy around the hip and proximal femur. The aim of this study is to quantify the radiation exposure associated with common radiological investigations performed in assessing young adult patients presenting with non-arthritic hip pain. A retrospective review of our UK tertiary hip preservation centre institutional imaging database was performed. Data was obtained for antero-posterior, cross-table lateral and frog-lateral radiographs, along with data for the low dose CT hip protocol and the Mako CT Hip protocol. The radiation dose of each imaging technique was measured in terms of dose-area product (DAP) with units of mGycm2, and the effective doses (ED, mSv) calculated. The mean effective radiation dose for hip radiographs was in the range 0.03 to 0.83mSv (mean DLP 126.7–156.2 mGycm2). The mean effective dose associated with the low-dose CT hip protocol was 3.04mSv (416.8 mGycm2) and for the Stryker Mako CT Hip protocol was 8.4mSv (1061 mGycm2). The radiation dose associated with use of CT imaging was significantly greater than plain radiographs (p<0.005). Investigation of non-arthritic hip pain can lead to significant ionising radiation exposure for patients. In our institution, the routine protocol is to obtain an anteroposterior radiograph and then a specific hip sequence 3 Tesla MRI including anteversion views. This provides the necessary information in the majority of cases, with CT scanning reserved for more complex cases where we feel there is a specific indication. We would encourage the hip preservation community to carefully consider and review the use of ionising radiation investigations

Background. Radiation exposure remains a significant occupational hazard for Orthopaedic surgeons. There are no references values for trauma procedures performed with Image Intensifier (II). We aimed to determine and compare reference values for patient radiation exposure for common trauma operations, and to analyse the effect of surgeon grade on II usage. Methods. Data collected prospectively from 849 cases between 01/05/2013 and 01/10/2014 were analysed. Statistical analysis was performed to calculate reference values for dose area product (DAP), screening time (ST), and number of II images taken for common trauma procedures where n>9 (n=808). Results. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation required significantly less radiation than proximal femoral nail (PFN) for intertrochanteric hip fractures for median DAP (668mG/cm2 vs 1040mG/cm2, p<0.001), ST (00:36 vs 00:48, p<0.001), and number of II images (65 vs 110, p<0.001). Radiation exposure was statistically significantly less when Consultant Orthopaedic surgeons were first surgeon compared to Staff grade doctors and Orthopaedic trainees for DAP (90.55mGy/cm2 vs 175.5mGy/cm2 vs 366.5mGy/cm2), screening time (00:26 vs 00:32 vs 00:36), and number of II images (49 vs 59 vs 66). Conclusions. We reported reference values for common trauma operations that are essential to enable monitoring of patient radiation exposure. PFN required greater radiation exposure than DHS for intertrochanteric hip fracture. Increased surgical experience lead to lower radiation exposure in trauma operations, which could be developed to assess trauma competence within surgical training. Level of evidence. III

Introduction and Objective. When using radiation intraoperatively, a surgeon should aim to maintain the dose as low as reasonably achievable to obtain the diagnostic or therapeutic goal. The UK Health Protection Agency reported mean radiation dose-area-product (DAP) of 4 Gy cm2 for hip procedures. We aimed to investigate factors associated with increased radiation exposure in fixation of proximal femur fractures. Materials and Methods. We assessed 369 neck of femur fractures between April 2019 and April 2020 in one district general hospital. Fractures were classified as extracapsular or intracapsular and into subtypes as per AO classification. Data was collected on type of fractures, implants used, level of surgeon, duration of surgery and DAP. Types of fractures were subclassified as complex (multifragmentary, subtrochanteric and reverse oblique) or simple. Results. Patients with fractures fixed with DHS, short PFNA, long PFNA and cannulated screws were included. 50% of our patients were fixed with hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement and were therefore excluded. 184 patients were included in the analysis. There was a significant association of higher DAP with fracture subtype (P=0.001), fracture complexity (P<0.001), if an additional implant was used (P=0.001), if fixation was satisfactory (P=0.002) and the operative time (P<0.001). DAP was higher in PFNA than DHS and greatest in Long PFNA. There was some evidence of association between the level of the surgeon and DAP, although this was not statistically significant (P=0.069) and remained not significant after adjusting for the variables (fracture complexity, fixation or implant used) (p=0.32). Conclusions. Increased radiation in proximal femur fractures is seen in fixation of complex fractures, certain subtypes, the type of implant used and if an additional implant was required. Seniority of surgeon did not result in less radiation exposure even when adjusting for other factors, which is in contrast to other published studies

Background: There is increased concern regarding radiation exposure to surgeons using fluoroscopic guidance throughout various procedures. However, relatively little information exists on the level of radiation exposure to the foot and ankle surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted foot and ankle surgery. Methods: We are conducting an ongoing proespective study to measure radiation exposure to the hands of a single orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon (RD). Over a 12-month period, thermoluminescent dosimeter rings are worn on the little finger of each hand of the operating surgeon. The rings are changed at six week intervals. Measurement of the overall radiation exposure is being recorded over this time period. Results: This is an ongoing prospective study started in December 2004. We are measuring: total number foot and ankle cases using fluoroscopy, the total screening time for foot and ankle procedures, the mean screening time per procedure and the total radiation exposure to the thermoluminescent dosimetry rings. Conclusion: Preliminary results show that radiation exposure is well below the current annual dose limit. In our study, radiation exposure during orthopaedic foot and ankle procedures is expected to comply with current recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Protection and is well below dose limits set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection

Reducing exposure to radiation is a concern to physicians and supporting staff. Little is known about the factors leading to increased exposure in intramedullary nailing of long bone fractures. This study examines antegrade and retrograde nailing of femur and tibia fractures. Factors that increased radiation exposure were obesity, severely comminuted fractures, nails inserted through the piriformis fossa, and insertion of more locking bolts in femoral nails. In addition, femoral nails required more radiation exposure than tibial nails. Exposure to radiation is a concern to physicians. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with increased radiation exposure with intramedullary nailing of long bone fractures. Femoral nailing through the piriformis fossa, highly comminuted fractures, insertion of more locking bolts (femur), and obesity are each associated with the higher radiation exposure. Factors associated with increased radiation exposure are identified for tibial and femoral nailing. Radiation exposure was higher for nailing of femur fractures (ninety-two seconds) compared to nailing of tibia fractures (sixty seconds). Exposure was greatest for insertion through the piriformis fossa (one hundred and twenty-one seconds) and least for retrograde insertion (seventy-four seconds) and intermediate for insertion through the trochanter (eighty-seven seconds). Obese patients (BMI > 30) had higher exposure times for both femoral (obese-one hundred and sixty seconds, non-obese-eighty-five seconds) and tibial nailing (obese-seventy-nine seconds, non-obese-fifty-five seconds). Only the most severely comminuted fracture patterns (Winquist IV) were associated with increased fluoroscopy time. Increasing number of interlocking bolts was associated with higher exposure for the femur but not the tibia. One hundred and thirty-nine consecutive patients treated with intramedullary nailing for either a femoral shaft (OTA 32, n=71) or tibial shaft (OTA 42, n=68) fracture were prospectively evaluated in this IRB approved study. Radiation exposure (c-arm fluoroscopy time) was measured. Femur fractures were treated with either a retrograde nail (n=24), an antegrade nail inserted through the piriformis fossa (n=20), or an antegrade nail inserted through the tip of the greater trochanter (n=27). Funding: Smith & Nephew

Radiation exposure is a hazard to orthopaedic surgeons, theatre staff and patients intra-operatively. Obesity is becoming a more prevalent problem worldwide and there is little evidence how a patient's body habitus correlates with the radiation doses required to penetrate the soft tissues for adequate imaging. We aimed to identify if there was a correlation between Body Mass Index (BMI) and radiation exposure intra-operatively. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients who underwent sliding hip screw fixation for femoral neck fractures in one year. We recorded Body Mass Index (BMI), screening time, dose area product (DAP), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, seniority of surgeon and complexity of the fracture configuration. We analysed the data using statistical tests. We found that there was a statistically significant correlation between dose area product and patient's BMI. There was no statistically significant relationship between screening time and BMI. There was no statistical difference between ASA grade, seniority of surgeon, or complexity of fracture configuration and dose area product. Obese patients are exposed to increased doses of radiation regardless of length of screening time. Surgeons and theatre staff should be aware of the increased radiation exposure during fixation of fractures in obese patients and, along with radiographers, ensure steps are taken to minimise these risks

Background: There is increasing concern regarding radiation exposure to surgeons’ using fluoroscopic guidance during orthopaedic procedures. However, there is currently a paucity of information regarding the level of radiation exposure to the foot and ankle surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted foot and ankle surgery. Methods: We conducted a 12 month prospective study to measure radiation dose absorbed by the hands of a dedicated right handed foot and ankle surgeon. A thermo-luminescent dosimeter ring (TLD) was worn on little finger of each hand. Measurement of the cumulative radiation dose was recorded on a monthly basis. Results: A total of 80 foot and ankle cases involving fluoroscopy were performed. The total screening time was 3028seconds (s) (mean screening time 37.4s). Screening time correlated positively with the number of procedures performed (r=0.92, p< 0.001), and with radiation dose in both the left TLD (r=0.85, p=0.0005) and right TLD (r=0.59, p=0.0419). There was no significant difference in radiation dose between either hand (p=0.62). The total radiation dose to the right TLD over the 12 months was 2.4 milli-sieverts. Conclusion: Radiation dose incurred during orthopaedic foot and ankle procedures is proportional to the screening time. Our results show radiation exposure to be well below the annual dose limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This work demonstrates a simple and convenient method for evaluating a single surgeon’s radiation exposure

Aims: To compare the results between intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) regarding operative time and radiation exposure time Methods:We reviewed radiation exposure times obtained during the fixation of 281 extracapsular proximal femoral fractures. Dynamic hip screw was used in 148, and intramedullary hip screw was used in 133. Results: The results showed that there was no statistical difference in ionising radiation exposure in closed reduction of these fractures regardless of fracture configuration or surgical experience of the surgeon, but there was a statistical difference in implant insertion time and radiation exposure (p= < 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude that intramed-ullary implant takes more radiation exposure because they take more time for insertion, which is irrespective of surgical experience and complexity of fracture

Methods:. Total radiation exposure accumulated during circular frame treatment of distal tibial fractures was quantified in 47 patients treated by a single surgeon from March 2011 until Nov 2014. The radiation exposures for all relevant radiology procedures for the distal tibial injury were included to estimate the radiation risk to the patient. Results:. The median time of treatment in the frame was 169 days (range 105 – 368 days). Patients underwent a median of 13 sets of plain radiographs; at least one intra operative exposure and 16 patients underwent CT scanning. The median total effective dose per patient from time of injury to discharge was 0.025 mSv (interquartile range 0.013 – 0.162 and minimum to maximum 0.01–0.53). CT scanning is the only variable shown to be an independent predictor of cumulative radiation dose on multivariate analysis, with a 13 fold increase in overall exposure. Conclusion:. Radiation exposure during treatment of distal tibial fractures with a circular frame in this group was well within reasonably safe limits. CT was the only significant predictor of overall exposure serves as a reminder to individually assess the risk and utility of radiological investigations on an individual basis. This is consistent with the UK legal requirements (Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. 1. )

The Mini C-arm has been heralded as a safer means of fluoroscopy. No clinical data on the use of the mini C-arm is available in the literature. The purpose of this study is to compare the exposure in clinical practice between the conventional C-arm and the mini C-arm, and to scrutinize the patterns of radiation exposure. All operations using the mini C-arm were reviewed. A control group of patients undergoing the identical surgical procedure using the conventional C-arm was used. The Sign test was used to detect the number of exposures taken and the radiation exposure documented. There were 16 surgical procedures where a valid control was available. The number of exposures performed with the mini C-arm was significantly greater than the conventional C-arm (p=0.05), but the emitted dose of radiation was significantly smaller for the mini C-arm (p 0.001). The authors conclude that the mini C-arm is a safer device for use in extremity surgery, but that the Surgeon should still be careful to avoid repeated excessive exposures

Purpose: The use of radiology is integral to Orthopaedic Trauma surgery and there has been increasing dependence on image intensifiers in the operating room. A study was undertaken to assess the radiation exposure of the surgeon. Methods: One full time orthopaedic trauma surgeon has worn a dosimeter on his waist since November 1996, under a lead apron when using a large image intensifier and when using a mini C-arm. Since November 2001, a second dosimeter was worn at the neck, unshielded in all cases. Since June 2005, a ring dosimeter was worn on the dominant ring finger and the all surgical cases were prospectively documented in regard to the type of intensifier used and the amount of fluoroscopy used. Results: In the nine years of monitoring the truncal dosimeter has never recorded any radiation. In four years of monitoring the neck dosimeter has recorded 5.72 mSv (average 1.4 mSv / yr). In last 2 months (6 months data will be available at the time of presentation), 99 operative cases were done. In 31 cases no intra-operative radiology was used, 33 cases used a mini C-arm and in 35 cases a large C-arm was used. A total of 40.2 minutes of mini fluoro time (average 1.22 minutes / case) and 118.09 minutes of full sized C-arm fluoro time (average 3.37 minutes / case) was used. In these 2 months the ring dosimeter recorded 5.4 mSv of radiation (annualized dose 32.4 mSv). Conclusions: The International Commission on Radiological Protection annual recommended dose limits for “radiation workers” are: whole body 20 mSv, eyes 150 mSv and skin / hands 500 mSv. For members of the public these limits are 1 mSv, 15 mSv and 50 mSv, respectively. The exposure of an Orthopaedic Trauma surgeon fall well below the annual recommended dose limits in the industry but begin to approach the limits for the public. From this study it would appear to be safe not to use a lead apron for mini C-arm cases. The surgeons hands are exposed to the most radiation and strategies to reduce this exposure should be pursued

Introduction: Fluoroscopy is routinely used for real-time intra-operative localization of patient anatomy and surgical instrument positioning. Using this radiographic information the orthopedic surgeon inserts different implants into bone. Despite its utility, however, fluoroscopy does have disadvantages. The most notable is potential occupational radiation exposure. Conventional fluoroscopy usually provides only one plane at a time, whereas at least two planes are needed for optimal placement of an implant. By combining a standard C-arm fluoroscopy with computer aided surgical technology, radiation exposure can be eliminated and four different planes can be visualized simultaneously. This study presents data of preliminary clinical experience using this new technology. Material and methods: The Stealth Station Treatment Guidance Platform System by Medtronic was used. The calibration target was attached to a C-arm fluoroscope. The static reference arc which was attached to the patient and various surgical tools. All with affixed light emitting diodes (LEDs) which were seen by the Infra Red camera. After a short registration process in which the relevant anatomy images were acquired, the C-arm was withdrawn and the entry point to the operated anatomy was determined using the navigation capabilities of the system. During a period of six months, 31 patients underwent different surgical procedures in which a guided wire was used for: percutaneous fixation of unstable pelvis and hip fractures (13 patients), inserting and locking of an intrameduallry nail (12 patients), inserting pedicular screws (2 patients), or removing foreign-bodies or internal fixations (4 patients). In all cases the placement of the hardware was approved by conventional fluoroscopy as well. Results: Excellent correlation between the virtual fluoroscopic imaging and live fluoroscopy was observed, thus the placement of the wire in all cases was satisfactory and there was no need to change the position of the wire following the live fluoroscopic confirmation. The number of fluoroscopic buttoning was smaller than the average number in similar surgery using conventional fluoroscopy. Discussion: According to our preliminary clinical experience it seems that virtual fluoroscopy offers several advantages over conventional fluoroscopy while providing acceptable targeting accuracy. Our impression is that its saves fluoroscopic radiation exposure and improves exactness of the procedure. However, since currently only one reference arc can be detected at a time by the guidance system it can be used only in a stable anatomical situations (such as non-displaced fractures or pedicular screw placements). The use of better-oriented surgical instrumentation and more than one reference point detection will significantly improve the clinical potential of this method

Introduction: Fluoroscopy is routinely used for real-time intra-operative localization of patient anatomy and surgical instrument positioning. Using this radiographic information the orthopedic surgeon inserts different implants into bone. Despite its utility, however, fluoroscopy does have disadvantages. The most notable is potential occupational radiation exposure. Conventional fluoroscopy usually provides only one plane at a time, whereas at least two planes are needed for optimal placement of an implant. By combining a standard C-arm fluoroscopy with computer aided surgical technology, radiation exposure can be eliminated and four different planes can be visualized simultaneously. This study presents data of preliminary clinical experience using this new technology. Material and methods: The Stealth Station Treatment Guidance Platform System by Medtronic was used. The calibration target was attached to a C-arm fluoroscope. The static reference arc which was attached to the patient and various surgical tools. All with affixed light emitting diodes (LEDs) which were seen by the Infra Red camera. After a short registration process in which the relevant anatomy images were acquired, the C-arm was withdrawn and the entry point to the operated anatomy was determined using the navigation capabilities of the system. During a period of six months, 31 patients underwent different surgical procedures in which a guided wire was used for: percutaneous fixation of unstable pelvis and hip fractures (13 patients), inserting and locking of an intrameduallry nail (12 patients), inserting pedicular screws (2 patients), or removing foreign-bodies or internal fixations (4 patients). In all cases the placement of the hardware was approved by conventional fluoroscopy as well. Results: Excellent correlation between the virtual fluoroscopic imaging and live fluoroscopy was observed, thus the placement of the wire in all cases was satisfactory and there was no need to change the position of the wire following the live fluoroscopic confirmation. The number of fluoroscopic buttoning was smaller than the average number in similar surgery using conventional fluoroscopy. Discussion: According to our preliminary clinical experience it seems that virtual fluoroscopy offers several advantages over conventional fluoroscopy while providing acceptable targeting accuracy. Our impression is that its saves fluoroscopic radiation exposure and improves exactness of the procedure. However, since currently only one reference arc can be detected at a time by the guidance system it can be used only in a stable anatomical situations (such as non-displaced fractures or pedicular screw placements). The use of better-oriented surgical instrumentation and more than one reference point detection will significantly improve the clinical potential of this method

Computer assisted surgery is becoming more prevalent in spinal surgery with most published literature suggesting an improvement in accuracy and reduction in radiation exposure. This has been particularly highlighted in scoliosis surgery with regard to the placement of pedicle screws. Anecdotally this has been challenged with concerns with regard to the steep learning curve using this equipment and the high cost of purchasing said systems. The more traditional technique utilises the surgeon's knowledge of anatomic landmarks and tactile palpation added with fluoroscopy to place pedicle screws. We retrospectively looked at 161 scoliosis corrections performed using this technique over three years by 3 main surgeons at the same centre (Frenchay). With an average of 10 levels per procedure and over 2000 pedicle screws inserted. We reviewed the radiation time exposure and dose of radiation given during each case. Our results compared favourably to published data using computer and robot assisted surgery with an average exposure time of 80 seconds and a mean dose of 144 mGy using a standard C-arm guided fluoroscopy. Our study suggests that armed with good surgical knowledge and technique it is possible to obtained low levels of radiation exposure of benefit to both patient and the operating team

Current orthopaedic practice involves an increasing use of operative fluoroscopic screening and radiation exposure. The AOA produces a booklet entitled “Radiation safety for orthopaedic surgeons” outlining the risks. There is a disparity between guidelines and actual clinical practice for trainee registrars. Aims:. To measure trainee fluoroscopy usage with and without consultants present. To audit trainees and hospitals adherence to the guidelines. All procedures in a 6 month period using II were analysed. Data for Procedure, Operating Surgeon, First Assistant and if Consultant Surgeon was present or absent was collected. Fluoroscopic Exposure Time was also recorded. Procedures were grouped and times compared depending on the staff present. There were 121 cases included in the study. 44 cases were performed by the trainee with the consultant assisting and 76 were performed in the absence of the consultant. A questionnaire based on the AOA guidelines was produced. All NSW advanced trainees in Orthopaedic surgery were asked to complete the anonymous questionnaire. There was a significant difference of 32.18 seconds in mean exposure time per case with a p-value 0.0069 where the consultant was present or not. There was also a significant difference between consultants doing the same cases. Other very significant findings were:. 97% of trainees were not aware of the maintenance and inspection schedules equipment. 97% of trainees have practiced the incorrect technique of using the image receptor of the II machine as an operating table which maximizes scatter to the head and neck. 65% regularly use continuous screening of II. 65% admit to taking unnecessary II shots to ensure the perfect xray. 32% of trainees wore no thyroid protection, 87% no eye protection and 100% used no head and hand protection. One registrar was exposed to 8131 seconds of II exposure during his 6 month rotation. Without the use of lead protection, the trainee registrar will have exceeded the annual limit of whole body exposure (20mSv/year) by more than 2-fold. Dramatic decreases in exposure can be achieved by better discipline with the usage of II. This needs to be a fundamental part of registrar training. The survey shows trainees are not aware, or fail to adhere to current guidelines and that hospitals are not providing appropriate safety equipment and not insisting that staff exercise safe practices

In recent years, some attempts have been made to develop a method that generates finite element (FE) models of the femur and pelvis using CT. However, due to the complex bone geometry, most of these methods require an excessive amount of CT radiation dosage. Here we describe a method for generating accurate patient-specific FE models of the total hip using a small number of CT scans in order to reduce radiation exposure. A previously reported method for autogenerating patient-specific FE models of the femur was extended to include the pelvis. CT osteodensitometry was performed on 3 patients who had hip replacement surgery and patient-specific FE models of the total hip were generated. The pelvis was generated with a new technique that incorporated a mesh morphing method called ‘host mesh fitting’. It used an existing generic mesh and then morphed it to reflect the patient specific geometry. This can be used to morph the whole pelvis, but our patient dataset was limited to the acetabulum. An algorithm was developed that automated all the procedures involved in the fitting process. Average error between the fitted mesh and patient specific data sets for the femur was less than 1mm. The error for the pelvis was about 2.5mm. This was when a total 18 CT scans with 10mm gap were used – 12 of the femur, and 6 of the pelvis. There was no element distortion and a smooth element surface was achieved. Previously, we reported a new method for automatically generating a FE model of the femur with as few CT scans as possible. Here we describe a technique that customizes a generic pelvis mesh to patient-specific data sets. Thus we have developed a novel hybrid technique which can generate an accurate FE model of the total hip using significantly less CT scans. An automated method of generating FE models for the total hip with reduced CT radiation exposure will be a valuable clinical tool for surgeons

Introduction: The mini C arm is a surgeon operated fluoroscopic device for use in the operating theatre for extremity orthopaedic surgery. There have been no studies comparing the radiation dose of the mini C arm and the conventional C arm. The aim of this study was to determine if the exposure to patient and surgeon was decreased with use of the mini C arm. Methods: This was a case-control study. Operations performed with the mini C arm were matched for type, complexity and operator with cases performed with the conventional C arm. The number of exposures and the total time of exposure were measured, and the skin dose and scatter calculated. Results: There were 16 case-control pairs. There was a significantly greater number of exposures taken by the surgeon operated mini C arm (p=0.02), but there was still a significantly lower exposure to the surgeon with the mini C arm (p=0.004). There was no significant difference in the patient skin dose (p=0.21). Conclusions: The surgeon operated mini C arm results in a greater exposure time and number of exposures. Despite this, the mini C arm exposes the surgeon to less radiation compared to the conventional C arm in extremity orthopaedics. The radiation exposure with the mini C arm is approximately half that of the conventional C arm. The increased number of exposures may occur because surgeons are more trigger happy with the mini C arm, or because there are technical problems with achieving a useful image. The mini C arm should be used for extremity orthopaedics whenever possible to decrease the radiation exposure