Literature DB >> 19788044

Effect of wetness level on the suitability of wet gauze as a substitute for Superflab as a bolus material for use with 6 mv photons.

Jerome Benoit1, Amy F Pruitt, Donald E Thrall.   

Abstract

Despite the availability of commercial tissue equivalent bolus material, wet gauze has an application in radiation therapy to provide superior conformance to irregular contours. Wet gauze bolus has the potential to reduce air gaps between the bolus and surface, which could decrease surface dose if sufficiently large to disrupt electronic equilibrium. Wet gauze bolus is often fabricated and wetness judged qualitatively. We assessed the effect of specific gauze wetness levels, quantified in terms of physical density, at various field sizes with respect to their effectiveness as bolus material compared with Superflab. For large fields, > 7 x 7 cm2 in this study, wet gauze sponges with a physical density of 1.02 g/cm3 performed essentially identical to Superflab; at a smaller field size the wet gauze was slightly less effective, likely due to the heterogeneity of the gauze-water matrix. Gauze that was wetter, with a physical density of 1.2 g/cm3, or less wet, with a physical density of 0.75 g/cm3 was not as effective either due to enhanced photon absorption in the wetter sponges, or less effective establishment of electronic equilibrium in the less wet sponges. The presence of an air gap under Superflab led to reduced surface dose, especially for small fields and large air gaps. Thus, if Superflab use leads to poor contact with the skin, wet gauze having a physical density of 1.02 g/cm3 can be used as a substitute. Judging the water content of wet gauze subjectively is not acceptable as over- or under wetness can lead to decreased effectiveness of the bolus material.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19788044     DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2009.01573.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet Radiol Ultrasound        ISSN: 1058-8183            Impact factor:   1.363


  8 in total

1.  The Antimicrobial Effects of Bacterial Cellulose Produced by Komagataeibacter intermedius in Promoting Wound Healing in Diabetic Mice.

Authors:  Chou-Yi Hsu; Sheng-Che Lin; Yi-Hsuan Wu; Chun-Yi Hu; Yung-Tsung Chen; Yo-Chia Chen
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 6.208

2.  3D-printed bolus improves dose distribution for veterinary patients treated with photon beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  Tiffany Wormhoudt Martin; Mary-Keara Boss; Susan M LaRue; Del Leary
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.008

3.  A customized bolus produced using a 3-dimensional printer for radiotherapy.

Authors:  Shin-Wook Kim; Hun-Joo Shin; Chul Seung Kay; Seok Hyun Son
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Characterization of Water-Clear Polymeric Gels for Use as Radiotherapy Bolus.

Authors:  Justus D Adamson; Tabitha Cooney; Farokh Demehri; Andrew Stalnecker; Debra Georgas; Fang-Fang Yin; John Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-05-30

5.  Novel application of vinylpolysiloxane hearing aid impression mold as patient-specific bolus for head and neck cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Anne Elizabeth Gunter; John Burgoyne; Min Park; Namou Kim; Daliang Cao; Vivek Mehta
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2020-03-23

6.  Development and dosimetric verification of 3D customized bolus in head and neck radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nichakan Chatchumnan; Sakda Kingkaew; Chuanchom Aumnate; Taweap Sanghangthum
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 2.438

7.  Workload implications for clinic workflow with implementation of three-dimensional printed customized bolus for radiation therapy: A pilot study.

Authors:  Eric Ehler; David Sterling; Kathryn Dusenbery; Jessica Lawrence
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evaluation of the quality of fit of flexible bolus material created using 3D printing technology.

Authors:  Ciaran Malone; Elaine Gill; Tanith Lott; Catherine Rogerson; Sinead Keogh; Majed Mousli; Denise Carroll; Caitriona Kelly; John Gaffney; Brendan McClean
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 2.102

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.