PubMed · 9039494
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J J Manni, W Kuijpers. 1997. Endolymph flow.. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489709118004
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Our aim in this study was to distinguish quantitatively between the localization accuracy of a commercially available stereotactic fixation device as claimed by the manufacturer and the target accuracy as measured by a user, applying neuroradiologic imaging in Gamma Knife planning and phantom irradiation. Missing the target is the most serious possible failure in Gamma Knife and Linac therapy. To reduce this risk, we developed a quality control algorithm and designed a phantom. To evaluate the accuracy of the targeting procedure with a Leksell Gamma unit, and to experience the possible errors in all procedural steps, irradiations of phantoms were performed, using the so-called "unknown" targeting method. Accuracy is defined by the extent of spatial deviation of the irradiated target from the calculated target. Digital imaging was used for therapy planning. GafChromic films, which had been irradiated while affixed to a specially developed phantom, were used for measuring the precision of the radiation unit. A series of MR images (in two plains: transverse and coronal) was acquired sequentially to image the three-dimensional (3-D) volume of the phantom. The results obtained for isocentric accuracy of the Leksell Gamma unit, model B, were in good agreement to the calculated position. The observed spatial deviations between calculated and irradiated targets is less than 1 mm. The newly designed phantom and quality control algorithm are useful in quality assurance measurements of stereotactic radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: Measurement of scanner-dependent differences in PCTDI for conventional and spiral CT and evaluation of PCTDI/100 mAs in eight spiral CT scanners of the latest generation. METHODS: Central PCTDI was evaluated in a PMMA phantom for different scan lengths of conventional and spiral CT in four scanners. Central and peripheral PCTDI/100 mAs, average dose and the quotient between peripheral and central PCTDI/100 mAs were measured with a dedicated 10 cm ionisation chamber positioned within a PMMA phantom using the parameters of a standardised liver protocol and a high-resolution inner ear protocol for eight spiral CT scanners. RESULTS: Depending on scanner type and scan length PCTDI for the spiral mode is in a range between 11.3% higher and 4.3% lower than that for the conventional mode. PCTDI/100 mAs varies considerably between different CT scanners. For the standardised liver protocol PCTDI/100 mAs varies up to a factor of 2, for the inner ear protocol up to a factor of 4. CONCLUSION: Even in comparable modern CT scanners there are considerable protocol and scanner-dependent differences in PCTDI/100 mAs. The values for his own scanner should be known to each CT user so that he can develop a dose-optimised, patient and problem-orientated examination strategy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.