scholarly journals Commissioning and Evaluation of a Third-Party 6 Degrees-of-Freedom Couch Used in Radiotherapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 153303381987077
Author(s):  
Maria F. Chan ◽  
Seng-Boh Lim ◽  
Xiang Li ◽  
Xiaoli Tang ◽  
Peng Zhang ◽  
...  

Purposes: The newly released Protura 6 degrees-of-freedom couch (CIVCO) has limited quality assurance protocols and pertinent publications. Herein, we report our experiences of the Protura system acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance. Methods: The Protura system integration was tested with peripheral equipment on the following items: couch movement range limit, 6 degrees-of-freedom movement accuracy, weight test and couch sagging, system connection with Linac, isocentricity of couch and rotation alignment, kV and cone-beam computed tomography imaging of HexaCHECK with MIMI phantom (Standard Imaging), and an in-house custom 6 degrees-of-freedom quality assurance phantom. A couch transmission measurement was also performed. Results: The vertical, longitudinal, and lateral ranges of the 6 degrees-of-freedom couch pedestal are 43.9 to 0.0 cm, 24.6 to 149.5 cm, −20.6 to 20.7 cm, respectively. The couch movement accuracy was within 1 mm in all directions. The couch sagging with a 200 lbs (∼91 kg) evenly distributed object is 1.0 cm and 0.4° pitch in the distal end of the couch. The isocentricity of the couch was about 0.5 mm in diameter of all crosshair projections on the couch isocenter level, and the largest couch rotation alignment observed was (0.3°) at the couch angle of 90°. The deviation from the reference position (zero position) of the HexaCHECK phantom, measured by matching the cone-beam computed tomography with the reference planning computed tomography, was found to be below 0.2 mm in the anterior–posterior and right–left dimensions, 0.4 mm in superior–inferior dimension, and 0.1° in roll, pitch, and yaw directions. Conclusions: A 6 degrees-of-freedom quality assurance phantom is helpful for the commissioning and routine quality assurance tests. Due to the third-party integration with Linac, the system is prone to “double-correction” errors. A rigorous quality assurance program is the key to a successful clinical implementation of the Protura system.

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Baan ◽  
R. Bruggink ◽  
J. Nijsink ◽  
T. J. J. Maal ◽  
E. M. Ongkosuwito

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical accuracy of the fusion of intra-oral scans in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans using two commercially available software packages. Materials and methods Ten dry human skulls were subjected to structured light scanning, CBCT scanning, and intra-oral scanning. Two commercially available software packages were used to perform fusion of the intra-oral scans in the CBCT scan to create an accurate virtual head model: IPS CaseDesigner® and OrthoAnalyzer™. The structured light scanner was used as a gold standard and was superimposed on the virtual head models, created by IPS CaseDesigner® and OrthoAnalyzer™, using an Iterative Closest Point algorithm. Differences between the positions of the intra-oral scans obtained with the software packages were recorded and expressed in six degrees of freedom as well as the inter- and intra-observer intra-class correlation coefficient. Results The tested software packages, IPS CaseDesigner® and OrthoAnalyzer™, showed a high level of accuracy compared to the gold standard. The accuracy was calculated for all six degrees of freedom. It was noticeable that the accuracy in the cranial/caudal direction was the lowest for IPS CaseDesigner® and OrthoAnalyzer™ in both the maxilla and mandible. The inter- and intra-observer intra-class correlation coefficient showed a high level of agreement between the observers. Clinical relevance IPS CaseDesigner® and OrthoAnalyzer™ are reliable software packages providing an accurate fusion of the intra-oral scan in the CBCT. Both software packages can be used as an accurate fusion tool of the intra-oral scan in the CBCT which provides an accurate basis for 3D virtual planning.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 20160329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus V L de Oliveira ◽  
Ann Wenzel ◽  
Paulo S F Campos ◽  
Rubens Spin-Neto

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideharu Miura ◽  
Shuichi Ozawa ◽  
Masahiro Hayata ◽  
Shintarou Tsuda ◽  
Tsubasa Enosaki ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 71-76
Author(s):  
Jonathan J. Wyatt ◽  
Rachel A. Pearson ◽  
Christopher P. Walker ◽  
Rachel L. Brooks ◽  
Karen Pilling ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Keuschnigg ◽  
Daniel Kellner ◽  
Karl Fritscher ◽  
Andrea Zechner ◽  
Ulrich Mayer ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 33 (6Part12) ◽  
pp. 2131-2132
Author(s):  
S Yoo ◽  
G Kim ◽  
R Hammoud ◽  
E Elder ◽  
T Pawlicki ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document