Search

Objective: Reducing radiation exposure through the use of low-dose protocols during cerebral endovascular procedures is recommended, but evaluation of the impact on the procedure itself is difficult and subjective. A workflow task analysis could provide an objective comparison of two different radiation exposure protocols., Subjects and Methods: Twenty endovascular aneurysm treatments were analyzed using a low-dose protocol (reducing radiation exposure by 20%) in 10 cases and a normal-dose protocol in the other 10 cases. The procedure was subdivided into five phases, each comprising a sequence of tasks. Each task was defined as a triplet, associating an action, an instrument, and an anatomic structure. A workflow editor was used to record tasks and phases with a tablet PC. The total duration of the entire procedure, the duration of each task, and the number of task repetitions were isolated and used as the metric. Moreover, the tasks involving x-ray use, essential for navigation and treatment phases, were separated and analyzed., Results: For the microcatheter navigation and treatment phases, no statistically significant difference was found between the two radiation exposure protocols. For guide catheter navigation in cervical vessels, the total phase duration and total and mean time of tasks specifically involving x-ray use increased with age, but there was no difference between the two radiation protocols., Conclusion: Workflow task analysis of endovascular aneurysm treatment shows no difference between low-dose and normal-dose protocols in the guide catheter navigation, microcatheter navigation, or treatment phases.