Comparison of visual biofeedback system with a guiding waveform and abdomen-chest motion self-control system for respiratory motion management. (3rd August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nakajima, Yujiro; Kadoya, Noriyuki; Kanai, Takayuki; Ito, Kengo; Sato, Kiyokazu; Dobashi, Suguru; Yamamoto, Takaya; Ishikawa, Yojiro; Matsushita, Haruo; Takeda, Ken; Jingu, Keiichi
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiation research. Volume 57:Number 4(2016:Jul.)
• Page Start: 387
• Page End: 392
• Publication Date: 2016-08-03
• Subjects: radiotherapy -- four-dimensional CT -- respiratory motion management -- visual biofeedback -- breathing guidance; Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiobiology -- Periodicals; Radiation -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrv106
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0449-3060

Abstract

Abstract: Irregular breathing can influence the outcome of 4D computed tomography imaging and cause artifacts. Visual biofeedback systems associated with a patient-specific guiding waveform are known to reduce respiratory irregularities. In Japan, abdomen and chest motion self-control devices (Abches) (representing simpler visual coaching techniques without a guiding waveform) are used instead; however, no studies have compared these two systems to date. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of respiratory coaching in reducing respiratory irregularities by comparing two respiratory management systems. We collected data from 11 healthy volunteers. Bar and wave models were used as visual biofeedback systems. Abches consisted of a respiratory indicator indicating the end of each expiration and inspiration motion. Respiratory variations were quantified as root mean squared error (RMSE) of displacement and period of breathing cycles. All coaching techniques improved respiratory variation, compared with free-breathing. Displacement RMSEs were 1.43 ± 0.84, 1.22 ± 1.13, 1.21 ± 0.86 and 0.98 ± 0.47 mm for free-breathing, Abches, bar model and wave model, respectively. Period RMSEs were 0.48 ± 0.42, 0.33 ± 0.31, 0.23 ± 0.18 and 0.17 ± 0.05 s for free-breathing, Abches, bar model and wave model, respectively. The average reduction in displacement and period RMSE compared with the wave model were 27% and 47%, respectively. For variation in both displacement and period, wave model was superior to the other techniques. Our results showed that visual biofeedback combined with a wave model could potentially provide clinical benefits in respiratory management, although all techniques were able to reduce respiratory irregularities.