Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
New head support device for cats and dogs during radiation therapy
By Nemoto, Yuki et al.·Published in Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association·2015·Graduate School of Veterinary Medicine, Japan·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: A NOVEL SUPPORT DEVICE FOR HEAD IMMOBILIZATION DURING RADIATION THERAPY THAT IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH CATS AND DOGS.
Plain-English summary
A study looked at a new head support device used during radiation therapy for dogs and cats with head tumors. The new device, called Device II, was found to be better than an older version (Device I) because it provided more stability and improved accuracy in positioning the head during treatment. This was tested on a variety of dogs and cats, and the results showed that Device II significantly reduced the variability in head positioning and improved the accuracy of targeting the tumor. The researchers recommend using Device II for pets undergoing radiation therapy in the future.
People also search for: dog head tumor radiation therapy · cat radiation therapy support device · head immobilization for pets
Abstract
Repeatable head immobilization is important for minimizing positioning error during radiation therapy for veterinary patients with head neoplasms. The purpose of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to describe a novel technique for head immobilization (Device II) and compare this technique with a previously described technique (Device I). Device II provided additional support by incorporating three teeth (vs. two teeth with Device I). Between 2011 and 2013, both devices were applied in clinically affected cats (Device I, n = 17; Device II, n = 11) and dogs (Device I, n = 85; Device II, n = 22) of various breeds and sizes. The following data were recorded for each included patient: variability in the angle of the skull (roll, yaw, and pitch), coordinates of the isocenter, and distance from the reference mark to the tumor. Devices I and II differed for skull angle variability during the treatment of dogs (roll, P = 0.0007; yaw, P = 0.0018; pitch, P = 0.0384) and for yaw of during the treatment of cats (P < 0.0001). In each case, Device II was superior to Device I. The distance from the reference mark to the center of the tumor was significantly decreased for Device II vs. Device I (dogs, P < 0.0001; cats, P = 0.0002). Device II also provided more accurate coordinates for the isocenter. Authors recommend the use of, Device II for future clinical patients.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26202221/