The Experts below are selected from a list of 168 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Hisatoshi Maeda - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Evaluation of Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Detector-based Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Nuclear Cardiology: a Comparison with Conventional Anger Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography
    Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2017
    Co-Authors: Takanaga Niimi, Mamoru Nanasato, Mitsuo Sugimoto, Hisatoshi Maeda
    Abstract:

    Purpose The differences in performance between the cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) camera or collimation systems and conventional Anger single-photon emission computed tomography (A-SPECT) remain insufficient from the viewpoint of the user. We evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT (Spectrum Dynamics, Israel) system to provide more information to the cardiologist or Radiological Technologist about its use in the clinical field. Materials and Methods This study evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT system in terms of energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, modulation transfer function (MTF), and collimator resolution in comparison with that of A-SPECT (Bright-View, Philips, Japan). Energy resolution and detector sensitivity were measured for Tc-99m, I-123, and Tl-201. The SPECT images produced by both systems were evaluated visually using the anthropomorphic torso phantom. Results The energy resolution of D-SPECT with Tc-99m and I-123 was approximately two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The detector sensitivity of D-SPECT was higher than that of A-SPECT (Tc-99m: 4.2 times, I-123: 2.2 times, and Tl-201: 5.9 times). The mean spatial resolution of D-SPECT was two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The MTF of D-SPECT was superior to that of the A-SPECT system for all frequencies. The collimator resolution of D-SPECT was lower than that of A-SPECT; however, the D-SPECT images clearly indicated better spatial resolution than the A-SPECT images. Conclusion The energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, and MTF of D-SPECT were superior to those of A-SPECT. Although the collimator resolution was lower than that of A-SPECT, the D-SPECT images were clearly of better quality.

Morio Matsumoto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Surgeons ’ Exposure to Radiation in Single- and Multi- Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion; A Prospective Study
    2016
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    Although minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has widely been developed in patients with lumbar diseases, surgeons risk exposure to fluoroscopic radiation. However, to date, there is no studies quantifying the effective dose during MIS-TLIF procedure, and the radiation dose distribution is still unclear. In this study, the surgeons’ radiation doses at 5 places on the bodies were measured and the effective doses were assessed during 31 consecutive 1- to 3-level MIS-TLIF surgeries. The operating surgeon, assisting surgeon, and Radiological Technologist wore thermoluminescent dosimeter on the unshielded thyroid, chest, genitals, right middle finger, and on the chest beneath a lead apron. The doses at the lens and the effective doses were also calculated. Mean fluoroscopy times were 38.7, 53.1, and 58.5 seconds for 1, 2, or 3 fusion levels, respectively. The operating surgeon’s mean exposures at the lens, thyroid, chest, genitals, finger, and the chest beneath the shield, respectively, were 0.07, 0.07, 0.09, 0.14, 0.32, and 0.05 mSv in 1-level MIS-TLIF; 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.18, 0.34, and 0.05 mSv in 2-level; 0.08, 0.09, 0.14, 0.15, 0.36, and 0.06 mSv in 3-level; and 0.07, 0.08, 0.10, 0.15, 0.33, and 0.05 mSv in all cases. Mean dose at the operating surgeon’s right finger was significantly higher than other measurements parts (P,0.001). The operating surgeon’s effective doses (0.06, 0.06, and 0.07 mSv for 1, 2, and 3 fusion levels) were low, and didn’t differ significantly from those of the assisting surgeon or Radiological Technologist. Revision MIS-TLIF was not associated with higher surgeons ’ radiation doses compared to primary MIS-TLIF. There were significantly higher surgeons

  • Comparison of surgeons' radiation doses between primary and revision surgery in 1-level MIS-TLIF.
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    (OS; operating surgeon, AS; assisting surgeon, RT; Radiological Technologist. Chest 1; a dose at unshielded chest, Chest 2; a dose at chest under a lead apron.).

  • Comparison of surgeons' radiation doses between normal-weight (BMI25) in 1-level MIS-TLIF.
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    (OS; operating surgeon, AS; assisting surgeon, RT; Radiological Technologist. Chest 1; a dose at unshielded chest, Chest 2; a dose at chest under a lead apron. *Statistically significant).

  • Mean surgeons' radiation doses of different measurement parts, and mean effective doses in MIS-TLIF (mSv).
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    (OS; operating surgeon, AS; assisting surgeon, RT; Radiological Technologist. Chest 1; a dose at unshielded chest, Chest 2; a dose at chest under a lead apron. *Statistically significant).

  • Intraoperative setup of the surgical team and equipment.
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    A single C-arm was used for fluoroscopic imaging. The operating surgeon stood next to the X-ray tube. The assisting surgeon and Radiological Technologist were stationed at the opposite site, along with the image intensifier.

Takanaga Niimi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Evaluation of Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Detector-based Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Nuclear Cardiology: a Comparison with Conventional Anger Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography
    Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2017
    Co-Authors: Takanaga Niimi, Mamoru Nanasato, Mitsuo Sugimoto, Hisatoshi Maeda
    Abstract:

    Purpose The differences in performance between the cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) camera or collimation systems and conventional Anger single-photon emission computed tomography (A-SPECT) remain insufficient from the viewpoint of the user. We evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT (Spectrum Dynamics, Israel) system to provide more information to the cardiologist or Radiological Technologist about its use in the clinical field. Materials and Methods This study evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT system in terms of energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, modulation transfer function (MTF), and collimator resolution in comparison with that of A-SPECT (Bright-View, Philips, Japan). Energy resolution and detector sensitivity were measured for Tc-99m, I-123, and Tl-201. The SPECT images produced by both systems were evaluated visually using the anthropomorphic torso phantom. Results The energy resolution of D-SPECT with Tc-99m and I-123 was approximately two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The detector sensitivity of D-SPECT was higher than that of A-SPECT (Tc-99m: 4.2 times, I-123: 2.2 times, and Tl-201: 5.9 times). The mean spatial resolution of D-SPECT was two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The MTF of D-SPECT was superior to that of the A-SPECT system for all frequencies. The collimator resolution of D-SPECT was lower than that of A-SPECT; however, the D-SPECT images clearly indicated better spatial resolution than the A-SPECT images. Conclusion The energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, and MTF of D-SPECT were superior to those of A-SPECT. Although the collimator resolution was lower than that of A-SPECT, the D-SPECT images were clearly of better quality.

Haruki Funao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Surgeons ’ Exposure to Radiation in Single- and Multi- Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion; A Prospective Study
    2016
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    Although minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has widely been developed in patients with lumbar diseases, surgeons risk exposure to fluoroscopic radiation. However, to date, there is no studies quantifying the effective dose during MIS-TLIF procedure, and the radiation dose distribution is still unclear. In this study, the surgeons’ radiation doses at 5 places on the bodies were measured and the effective doses were assessed during 31 consecutive 1- to 3-level MIS-TLIF surgeries. The operating surgeon, assisting surgeon, and Radiological Technologist wore thermoluminescent dosimeter on the unshielded thyroid, chest, genitals, right middle finger, and on the chest beneath a lead apron. The doses at the lens and the effective doses were also calculated. Mean fluoroscopy times were 38.7, 53.1, and 58.5 seconds for 1, 2, or 3 fusion levels, respectively. The operating surgeon’s mean exposures at the lens, thyroid, chest, genitals, finger, and the chest beneath the shield, respectively, were 0.07, 0.07, 0.09, 0.14, 0.32, and 0.05 mSv in 1-level MIS-TLIF; 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.18, 0.34, and 0.05 mSv in 2-level; 0.08, 0.09, 0.14, 0.15, 0.36, and 0.06 mSv in 3-level; and 0.07, 0.08, 0.10, 0.15, 0.33, and 0.05 mSv in all cases. Mean dose at the operating surgeon’s right finger was significantly higher than other measurements parts (P,0.001). The operating surgeon’s effective doses (0.06, 0.06, and 0.07 mSv for 1, 2, and 3 fusion levels) were low, and didn’t differ significantly from those of the assisting surgeon or Radiological Technologist. Revision MIS-TLIF was not associated with higher surgeons ’ radiation doses compared to primary MIS-TLIF. There were significantly higher surgeons

  • Comparison of surgeons' radiation doses between primary and revision surgery in 1-level MIS-TLIF.
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    (OS; operating surgeon, AS; assisting surgeon, RT; Radiological Technologist. Chest 1; a dose at unshielded chest, Chest 2; a dose at chest under a lead apron.).

  • Comparison of surgeons' radiation doses between normal-weight (BMI25) in 1-level MIS-TLIF.
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    (OS; operating surgeon, AS; assisting surgeon, RT; Radiological Technologist. Chest 1; a dose at unshielded chest, Chest 2; a dose at chest under a lead apron. *Statistically significant).

  • Mean surgeons' radiation doses of different measurement parts, and mean effective doses in MIS-TLIF (mSv).
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    (OS; operating surgeon, AS; assisting surgeon, RT; Radiological Technologist. Chest 1; a dose at unshielded chest, Chest 2; a dose at chest under a lead apron. *Statistically significant).

  • Intraoperative setup of the surgical team and equipment.
    2014
    Co-Authors: Haruki Funao, Ken Ishii, Suketaka Momoshima, Akio Iwanami, Naobumi Hosogane, Kota Watanabe, Masaya Nakamura, Yoshiaki Toyama, Morio Matsumoto
    Abstract:

    A single C-arm was used for fluoroscopic imaging. The operating surgeon stood next to the X-ray tube. The assisting surgeon and Radiological Technologist were stationed at the opposite site, along with the image intensifier.

Mamoru Nanasato - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Evaluation of Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Detector-based Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Nuclear Cardiology: a Comparison with Conventional Anger Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography
    Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2017
    Co-Authors: Takanaga Niimi, Mamoru Nanasato, Mitsuo Sugimoto, Hisatoshi Maeda
    Abstract:

    Purpose The differences in performance between the cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) camera or collimation systems and conventional Anger single-photon emission computed tomography (A-SPECT) remain insufficient from the viewpoint of the user. We evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT (Spectrum Dynamics, Israel) system to provide more information to the cardiologist or Radiological Technologist about its use in the clinical field. Materials and Methods This study evaluated the performance of the D-SPECT system in terms of energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, modulation transfer function (MTF), and collimator resolution in comparison with that of A-SPECT (Bright-View, Philips, Japan). Energy resolution and detector sensitivity were measured for Tc-99m, I-123, and Tl-201. The SPECT images produced by both systems were evaluated visually using the anthropomorphic torso phantom. Results The energy resolution of D-SPECT with Tc-99m and I-123 was approximately two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The detector sensitivity of D-SPECT was higher than that of A-SPECT (Tc-99m: 4.2 times, I-123: 2.2 times, and Tl-201: 5.9 times). The mean spatial resolution of D-SPECT was two times higher than that of A-SPECT. The MTF of D-SPECT was superior to that of the A-SPECT system for all frequencies. The collimator resolution of D-SPECT was lower than that of A-SPECT; however, the D-SPECT images clearly indicated better spatial resolution than the A-SPECT images. Conclusion The energy resolution, detector sensitivity, spatial resolution, and MTF of D-SPECT were superior to those of A-SPECT. Although the collimator resolution was lower than that of A-SPECT, the D-SPECT images were clearly of better quality.