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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hubie, Catherine, Shaw, Maddison, Bydder, Sean, Lane, Jonny, Waters, Gemma, McNabb, Megan, Kearvell, Rachel, Concannon, Alicia, Bharat, Chrianna, Appleyard, Rob
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