Use of surgical hemoclips in radiation treatment planning

Margaret C. McEntee, Michele A Steffey, Nathan L. Dykes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

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. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2008, pp 395-399.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)395-399
Number of pages5
JournalVeterinary Radiology and Ultrasound
Volume49
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

planning
Radiation
Cicatrix
Extremities
neoplasms
Neoplasms
radiology
Radiology
resection
prospective studies
Prospective Studies
Dogs
surgery
dogs
Surgical Wound

Keywords

  • Hemoclip
  • Radiation treatment planning
  • Simulation
  • Surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Use of surgical hemoclips in radiation treatment planning. / McEntee, Margaret C.; Steffey, Michele A; Dykes, Nathan L.

In: Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound, Vol. 49, No. 4, 07.2008, p. 395-399.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McEntee, Margaret C. ; Steffey, Michele A ; Dykes, Nathan L. / Use of surgical hemoclips in radiation treatment planning. In: Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound. 2008 ; Vol. 49, No. 4. pp. 395-399.
@article{23794fabe7fa4eee8a7ae7e23e57f08b,
title = "Use of surgical hemoclips in radiation treatment planning",
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. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2008, pp 395-399.",
keywords = "Hemoclip, Radiation treatment planning, Simulation, Surgery",
author = "McEntee, {Margaret C.} and Steffey, {Michele A} and Dykes, {Nathan L.}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "395--399",
journal = "Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound",
issn = "1058-8183",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of surgical hemoclips in radiation treatment planning

AU - McEntee, Margaret C.

AU - Steffey, Michele A

AU - Dykes, Nathan L.

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - 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. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2008, pp 395-399.

AB - 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. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2008, pp 395-399.

KW - Hemoclip

KW - Radiation treatment planning

KW - Simulation

KW - Surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54749105919&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54749105919&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00388.x

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 395

EP - 399

JO - Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound

JF - Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound

SN - 1058-8183

IS - 4

ER -