Cargando…
A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers
INTRODUCTION: Patient immobilisation is critically important for both highly conformal conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Different immobilisation devices are available to maintain patient position for radiotherapy but the most suitable one remains unkno...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27998039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.202 |
_version_ | 1783240813174587392 |
---|---|
author | Hubie, Catherine Shaw, Maddison Bydder, Sean Lane, Jonny Waters, Gemma McNabb, Megan Kearvell, Rachel Concannon, Alicia Bharat, Chrianna Appleyard, Rob |
author_facet | Hubie, Catherine Shaw, Maddison Bydder, Sean Lane, Jonny Waters, Gemma McNabb, Megan Kearvell, Rachel Concannon, Alicia Bharat, Chrianna Appleyard, Rob |
author_sort | Hubie, Catherine |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Patient immobilisation is critically important for both highly conformal conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Different immobilisation devices are available to maintain patient position for radiotherapy but the most suitable one remains unknown. METHODS: Forty‐five patients were randomly allocated to one of three immobilisation devices; the Q fix arm shuttle, BodyFIX without wrap or BodyFIX with wrap. Patients were imaged before and after treatment to ascertain intra‐fraction and inter‐fraction motion. Bony anatomy was used for matching to determine the positional accuracy of each device. Treatments were timed using a standard method. Patient comfort and staff satisfaction questionnaires were also issued to determine comfort, ease of use and preferences for each device. RESULTS: The BodyFIX without wrap was the more accurate device; however, the differences between the devices were not statistically significant. The BodyFIX with wrap was found to take significantly longer to set up and set down compared to the arm shuttle and the BodyFIX without wrap (all P < 0.001). Patients (37%) marginally preferred the BodyFIX with wrap. Most (81%) staff preferred the BodyFIX without wrap. CONCLUSION: Immobilisation using the BodyFIX without wrap was deemed to be suitable for clinical use. It was a clinically accurate device, the more efficient in terms of set up and set down time, the most preferred by staff and was accepted by patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5454323 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54543232017-06-06 A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers Hubie, Catherine Shaw, Maddison Bydder, Sean Lane, Jonny Waters, Gemma McNabb, Megan Kearvell, Rachel Concannon, Alicia Bharat, Chrianna Appleyard, Rob J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Patient immobilisation is critically important for both highly conformal conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Different immobilisation devices are available to maintain patient position for radiotherapy but the most suitable one remains unknown. METHODS: Forty‐five patients were randomly allocated to one of three immobilisation devices; the Q fix arm shuttle, BodyFIX without wrap or BodyFIX with wrap. Patients were imaged before and after treatment to ascertain intra‐fraction and inter‐fraction motion. Bony anatomy was used for matching to determine the positional accuracy of each device. Treatments were timed using a standard method. Patient comfort and staff satisfaction questionnaires were also issued to determine comfort, ease of use and preferences for each device. RESULTS: The BodyFIX without wrap was the more accurate device; however, the differences between the devices were not statistically significant. The BodyFIX with wrap was found to take significantly longer to set up and set down compared to the arm shuttle and the BodyFIX without wrap (all P < 0.001). Patients (37%) marginally preferred the BodyFIX with wrap. Most (81%) staff preferred the BodyFIX without wrap. CONCLUSION: Immobilisation using the BodyFIX without wrap was deemed to be suitable for clinical use. It was a clinically accurate device, the more efficient in terms of set up and set down time, the most preferred by staff and was accepted by patients. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-12-20 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5454323/ /pubmed/27998039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.202 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Hubie, Catherine Shaw, Maddison Bydder, Sean Lane, Jonny Waters, Gemma McNabb, Megan Kearvell, Rachel Concannon, Alicia Bharat, Chrianna Appleyard, Rob A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
title | A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
title_full | A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
title_fullStr | A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
title_short | A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
title_sort | randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27998039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.202 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hubiecatherine arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT shawmaddison arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT byddersean arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT lanejonny arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT watersgemma arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT mcnabbmegan arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT kearvellrachel arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT concannonalicia arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT bharatchrianna arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT appleyardrob arandomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT hubiecatherine randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT shawmaddison randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT byddersean randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT lanejonny randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT watersgemma randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT mcnabbmegan randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT kearvellrachel randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT concannonalicia randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT bharatchrianna randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers AT appleyardrob randomisedcomparisonofthreedifferentimmobilisationdevicesforthoracicandabdominalcancers |