Recent concern over the amount of ionizing radiation to which the public is exposed raises the question of the safety and utility of the fluoroscope in the general practitioner's office. There is evidence that the amount of exposure during fluoroscopy varies widely, as does the output of the fluoroscopes actually found in use. The busy practitioner does not always take time for his eyes to achieve maximal dark adaptation, and optimal filtration and other safety precautions have often been neglected. Fluroscopy is most valuable in observing abnormal movements. It therefore supplements the data obtained from roentgenography, which is otherwise more precise, yields permanent records, and gives more diagnostic information in proportion to the amount of radiation involved.
Kirsh IE. IS A FLUOROSCOPE USEFUL TO THE GENERAL PRACTITIONER? JAMA. 1959;170(10):1141–1142. doi:10.1001/jama.1959.03010100003002
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: