English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Exposure to ionizing radiation is a known hazard of radiological procedures. Aim: To compare the emission of secondary ionizing radiation from two coronary angiographic equipments, one with digital and the other with analog image generation. To evaluate the effectiveness of external radiological protection devices. Material and methods: Environmental and fluoroscopy generated radiation in the cephalic region of the patient was measured during diagnostic coronary angiographies. Ionizing radiation generated in anterior left oblique projection (ALO) and in anterior right oblique projection (ARO) were measured with and without leaded protections. In 19 patients (group 1), a digital equipment was used and in 21 (group 2), an analog equipment. Results: Header radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 1194 ± 337 and 364 ± 222 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). During fluoroscopy and with leaded protection generated radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 612 ± 947 and 70 ± 61 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). For ALO projection, generated radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 105 ± 47 and 71 ± 192 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). During filming the radiation for ALO projection for groups 1 and 2 was 7252 ± 9569 and 1671 ± 2038 µGray/h respectively (p = 0.03). Out of the protection zone, registered radiation during fluoroscopy for groups 1 and 2 was 2800 ± 1741 and 1318 ± 954 µGray/h respectively (p < 0.001); during filming, the figures were 15500 ± 5840 and 18961 ± 10599 µGray/h respectively (NS). Conclusions: Digital radiological equipment has a lower level of ionizing radiation emission than the analog equipment. (Rev Med Chile 2000; 128: 853-62).

revista médica de chile

Radiación ionizante secundaria generada en equipos de cineangiografía coronaria digital y analógica: influencia de los sistemas externos de protección radiológica