检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
出 处:《医疗卫生装备》2012年第1期69-69,72,共2页Chinese Medical Equipment Journal
摘 要:目的:比较鼻咽癌放疗中2种体位固定技术的精确度。方法:60例鼻咽癌患者均分2组,分别利用头颈肩膜和普通头(面)膜进行体位固定,每周测定模拟定位机下的摆位误差和CT验证验证片显示的摆位误差。结果:头颈肩膜固定技术的摆位精确度为80%~86.7%,普通头(面)膜固定技术摆位精确度为70%~73.3%,2种方法比较有显著差异(P<0.05)。结论:头颈肩膜固定技术的摆位明显优于普通头(面)膜固定技术。Objective To compare the fixation accuracy of two position techniques in radiotherapy. Methods Sixty nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients were divided into two groups, who were fixed with head, neck and shoulder membrane technology and general head (surface) membrane technology respectively. The setup errors of the simulator and the CT authentication films were measured every week. Results The positioning accuracy of head, neck and shoulder membrane technology was 80% to 86.7%, and that of general head (surface) membrane technology was 70% to 73.3%. There was significant different (P 〈0.05) between the two methods. Conclusion The head, neck and shoulder fixed-film positioning technology is better than normal head (surface) membrane fixation.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.81