USE OF SURGICAL HEMOCLIPS IN RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING
The goal of this prospective study was to determine the effect of hemoclip use on the size of radiation treatment fields based on a 3-cm margin around a surgical incision alone (field setup 1) vs. a 3-cm margin around the surgical incision plus hemoclips (field setup 2). Forty-seven dogs that underw...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary radiology & ultrasound 2008-07, Vol.49 (4), p.395-399 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 399 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 395 |
container_title | Veterinary radiology & ultrasound |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | McENTEE, MARGARET C STEFFEY, MICHELE DYKES, NATHAN L |
description | The goal of this prospective study was to determine the effect of hemoclip use on the size of radiation treatment fields based on a 3-cm margin around a surgical incision alone (field setup 1) vs. a 3-cm margin around the surgical incision plus hemoclips (field setup 2). Forty-seven dogs that underwent surgical resection of a total of 55 soft tissue masses had surgical hemoclips placed at the time of surgery and orthogonal radiographs made immediately postoperatively. Radiation treatment field simulation was done and field areas measured. Additional determinations included number of hemoclips outside of the radiation treatment field based on a margin around the incision alone, hemoclip distance from the incision, and association between incision length and greatest distance of hemoclips from the incision. There was a significant difference in radiation treatment field size using information regarding the location of hemoclips in conjunction with the surgical scar compared with the surgical scar alone for truncal (P=0.0003) vs. extremity tumors (P=0.087). In simulating radiation treatment fields hemoclips were located outside of field setup 1 for the majority of tumors (79%) resected from the trunk but only in a minority of tumors (10.7%) resected from extremity sites. The findings from this study suggest that surgical hemoclips have potential utility in simulation of radiation treatment fields in the postoperative setting. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69459799</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69459799</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4308-fc484bd1d9af5ecc2f0958de881e3024b22c8e39bb548da0753abaf5018e22d43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1r2zAUQEXZ6Nf2FzY_7c3ulWRF0kvBpG5iSJyS2Bvs5SLbcnGaNKnV0PTf14lD9zq96ILOPYJDiEchoN25WQZUhuArNqABA1ABAFcq2J-Ry8-HL90MQvmKKn5BrpxbAjAhmTwnF1RJBlKKS6LzRezN7r1FPh8lw2jijePpbDhJHhZeknrz6C6JsmSWetk8jrJpnGbewyRK0yQdfSNfa7Ny9vvpvib5fZwNx_5kdjT5ZchB-XUZqrCoaKVNLWxZshq0UJVViloOLCwYK5XluihEqCoDUnBTdChQZRmrQn5NfvXebbt52Vn3iuvGlXa1Ms92s3M40KHQUusOVD1YthvnWlvjtm3Wpn1HCnjIhks81MFDHTxkw2M23HerP05_7Iq1rf4tnjp1wG0PvDUr-_7fYvw9z49jJ_B7QeNe7f5TYNonHEguBf5JR_hXD_lIjjOcdvzPnq_NBs1j2zjMFwwoB9B0AILzD-39jdk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69459799</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>USE OF SURGICAL HEMOCLIPS IN RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>McENTEE, MARGARET C ; STEFFEY, MICHELE ; DYKES, NATHAN L</creator><creatorcontrib>McENTEE, MARGARET C ; STEFFEY, MICHELE ; DYKES, NATHAN L</creatorcontrib><description>The goal of this prospective study was to determine the effect of hemoclip use on the size of radiation treatment fields based on a 3-cm margin around a surgical incision alone (field setup 1) vs. a 3-cm margin around the surgical incision plus hemoclips (field setup 2). Forty-seven dogs that underwent surgical resection of a total of 55 soft tissue masses had surgical hemoclips placed at the time of surgery and orthogonal radiographs made immediately postoperatively. Radiation treatment field simulation was done and field areas measured. Additional determinations included number of hemoclips outside of the radiation treatment field based on a margin around the incision alone, hemoclip distance from the incision, and association between incision length and greatest distance of hemoclips from the incision. There was a significant difference in radiation treatment field size using information regarding the location of hemoclips in conjunction with the surgical scar compared with the surgical scar alone for truncal (P=0.0003) vs. extremity tumors (P=0.087). In simulating radiation treatment fields hemoclips were located outside of field setup 1 for the majority of tumors (79%) resected from the trunk but only in a minority of tumors (10.7%) resected from extremity sites. The findings from this study suggest that surgical hemoclips have potential utility in simulation of radiation treatment fields in the postoperative setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-8183</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1740-8261</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18720775</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Malden, USA : Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; dog diseases ; Dog Diseases - radiotherapy ; Dog Diseases - surgery ; Dogs ; hemoclip ; neoplasms ; Planning Techniques ; radiation treatment planning ; radiotherapy ; simulation ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms - surgery ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms - veterinary ; surgery ; surgical equipment ; Surgical Instruments - utilization ; Surgical Instruments - veterinary ; veterinary equipment</subject><ispartof>Veterinary radiology & ultrasound, 2008-07, Vol.49 (4), p.395-399</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2008 by the American College of Veterinary Radiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4308-fc484bd1d9af5ecc2f0958de881e3024b22c8e39bb548da0753abaf5018e22d43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4308-fc484bd1d9af5ecc2f0958de881e3024b22c8e39bb548da0753abaf5018e22d43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1740-8261.2008.00388.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1740-8261.2008.00388.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18720775$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McENTEE, MARGARET C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STEFFEY, MICHELE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DYKES, NATHAN L</creatorcontrib><title>USE OF SURGICAL HEMOCLIPS IN RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING</title><title>Veterinary radiology & ultrasound</title><addtitle>Vet Radiol Ultrasound</addtitle><description>The goal of this prospective study was to determine the effect of hemoclip use on the size of radiation treatment fields based on a 3-cm margin around a surgical incision alone (field setup 1) vs. a 3-cm margin around the surgical incision plus hemoclips (field setup 2). Forty-seven dogs that underwent surgical resection of a total of 55 soft tissue masses had surgical hemoclips placed at the time of surgery and orthogonal radiographs made immediately postoperatively. Radiation treatment field simulation was done and field areas measured. Additional determinations included number of hemoclips outside of the radiation treatment field based on a margin around the incision alone, hemoclip distance from the incision, and association between incision length and greatest distance of hemoclips from the incision. There was a significant difference in radiation treatment field size using information regarding the location of hemoclips in conjunction with the surgical scar compared with the surgical scar alone for truncal (P=0.0003) vs. extremity tumors (P=0.087). In simulating radiation treatment fields hemoclips were located outside of field setup 1 for the majority of tumors (79%) resected from the trunk but only in a minority of tumors (10.7%) resected from extremity sites. The findings from this study suggest that surgical hemoclips have potential utility in simulation of radiation treatment fields in the postoperative setting.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>dog diseases</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>hemoclip</subject><subject>neoplasms</subject><subject>Planning Techniques</subject><subject>radiation treatment planning</subject><subject>radiotherapy</subject><subject>simulation</subject><subject>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - veterinary</subject><subject>surgery</subject><subject>surgical equipment</subject><subject>Surgical Instruments - utilization</subject><subject>Surgical Instruments - veterinary</subject><subject>veterinary equipment</subject><issn>1058-8183</issn><issn>1740-8261</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1r2zAUQEXZ6Nf2FzY_7c3ulWRF0kvBpG5iSJyS2Bvs5SLbcnGaNKnV0PTf14lD9zq96ILOPYJDiEchoN25WQZUhuArNqABA1ABAFcq2J-Ry8-HL90MQvmKKn5BrpxbAjAhmTwnF1RJBlKKS6LzRezN7r1FPh8lw2jijePpbDhJHhZeknrz6C6JsmSWetk8jrJpnGbewyRK0yQdfSNfa7Ny9vvpvib5fZwNx_5kdjT5ZchB-XUZqrCoaKVNLWxZshq0UJVViloOLCwYK5XluihEqCoDUnBTdChQZRmrQn5NfvXebbt52Vn3iuvGlXa1Ms92s3M40KHQUusOVD1YthvnWlvjtm3Wpn1HCnjIhks81MFDHTxkw2M23HerP05_7Iq1rf4tnjp1wG0PvDUr-_7fYvw9z49jJ_B7QeNe7f5TYNonHEguBf5JR_hXD_lIjjOcdvzPnq_NBs1j2zjMFwwoB9B0AILzD-39jdk</recordid><startdate>200807</startdate><enddate>200807</enddate><creator>McENTEE, MARGARET C</creator><creator>STEFFEY, MICHELE</creator><creator>DYKES, NATHAN L</creator><general>Malden, USA : Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200807</creationdate><title>USE OF SURGICAL HEMOCLIPS IN RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING</title><author>McENTEE, MARGARET C ; STEFFEY, MICHELE ; DYKES, NATHAN L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4308-fc484bd1d9af5ecc2f0958de881e3024b22c8e39bb548da0753abaf5018e22d43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>dog diseases</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>hemoclip</topic><topic>neoplasms</topic><topic>Planning Techniques</topic><topic>radiation treatment planning</topic><topic>radiotherapy</topic><topic>simulation</topic><topic>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - veterinary</topic><topic>surgery</topic><topic>surgical equipment</topic><topic>Surgical Instruments - utilization</topic><topic>Surgical Instruments - veterinary</topic><topic>veterinary equipment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McENTEE, MARGARET C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STEFFEY, MICHELE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DYKES, NATHAN L</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary radiology & ultrasound</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McENTEE, MARGARET C</au><au>STEFFEY, MICHELE</au><au>DYKES, NATHAN L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>USE OF SURGICAL HEMOCLIPS IN RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary radiology & ultrasound</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Radiol Ultrasound</addtitle><date>2008-07</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>395</spage><epage>399</epage><pages>395-399</pages><issn>1058-8183</issn><eissn>1740-8261</eissn><abstract>The goal of this prospective study was to determine the effect of hemoclip use on the size of radiation treatment fields based on a 3-cm margin around a surgical incision alone (field setup 1) vs. a 3-cm margin around the surgical incision plus hemoclips (field setup 2). Forty-seven dogs that underwent surgical resection of a total of 55 soft tissue masses had surgical hemoclips placed at the time of surgery and orthogonal radiographs made immediately postoperatively. Radiation treatment field simulation was done and field areas measured. Additional determinations included number of hemoclips outside of the radiation treatment field based on a margin around the incision alone, hemoclip distance from the incision, and association between incision length and greatest distance of hemoclips from the incision. There was a significant difference in radiation treatment field size using information regarding the location of hemoclips in conjunction with the surgical scar compared with the surgical scar alone for truncal (P=0.0003) vs. extremity tumors (P=0.087). In simulating radiation treatment fields hemoclips were located outside of field setup 1 for the majority of tumors (79%) resected from the trunk but only in a minority of tumors (10.7%) resected from extremity sites. The findings from this study suggest that surgical hemoclips have potential utility in simulation of radiation treatment fields in the postoperative setting.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Malden, USA : Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>18720775</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1058-8183 |
ispartof | Veterinary radiology & ultrasound, 2008-07, Vol.49 (4), p.395-399 |
issn | 1058-8183 1740-8261 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69459799 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Animals dog diseases Dog Diseases - radiotherapy Dog Diseases - surgery Dogs hemoclip neoplasms Planning Techniques radiation treatment planning radiotherapy simulation Soft Tissue Neoplasms - radiotherapy Soft Tissue Neoplasms - surgery Soft Tissue Neoplasms - veterinary surgery surgical equipment Surgical Instruments - utilization Surgical Instruments - veterinary veterinary equipment |
title | USE OF SURGICAL HEMOCLIPS IN RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T19%3A36%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=USE%20OF%20SURGICAL%20HEMOCLIPS%20IN%20RADIATION%20TREATMENT%20PLANNING&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20radiology%20&%20ultrasound&rft.au=McENTEE,%20MARGARET%20C&rft.date=2008-07&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=395&rft.epage=399&rft.pages=395-399&rft.issn=1058-8183&rft.eissn=1740-8261&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69459799%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69459799&rft_id=info:pmid/18720775&rfr_iscdi=true |