SU‐FF‐J‐43: Technical Evaluation of Respiration Monitoring Devices and Breathing Training Techniques

N. Wink, S. Tenn, T. Solberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare external respiration monitoring devices and breathing training techniques for use in gated imaging and radiotherapy. Method and Materials: Respiration was monitored on four humans with three devices: a spirometer, a pressure gauge inside an adjustable belt, and an infrared marker tracking system. Monitoring was performed under free breathing, with audible instruction, with visual instruction, and with both audible and visual instruction. Each test was executed for two minutes. Belt placement was tested on both the chest and abdomen, while marker placement was on the abdomen alone. Period and amplitude variability was analyzed on all traces to determine optimal belt placement and instruction technique. Individual cycle periods were compared between the three devices to test their correlation. Results: Abdominal belt placement was optimal in all aspects. The uncertainty in periodicity with all devices was 4.6%, 15.3%, 18.6%, and 16.7% for free breathing, visual instruction, audible instruction, and both instruction techniques, respectively. The most consistent relative amplitudes were found using both instruction techniques. Significant drift in amplitude was observed under free breathing conditions. Comparison of individual cycle periods showed that the pressure gauge and infrared marker systems agreed on average within 10 ms, while the spirometer data differed from the others by 60 ms on average. Conclusion: If using a pressure gauge system, the belt should be placed around the patient's abdomen. The most consistent periodicity results from free breathing, while the most consistent amplitude results from visual and audible instruction. The differences in period measurement between the devices can be attributed to the differences in sampling interval, while the consistently larger difference found with the spirometric data most likely is due to the calculation of volume from measured flow. This work is supported in part by Grant ♯ 03‐028‐01‐CCE from the American Cancer Society and Siemens Medical Solutions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1929
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005

Fingerprint

Teaching
Respiration
Equipment and Supplies
Abdomen
Periodicity
Pressure
Uncertainty
Radiotherapy
Thorax

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐J‐43 : Technical Evaluation of Respiration Monitoring Devices and Breathing Training Techniques. / Wink, N.; Tenn, S.; Solberg, T.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2005, p. 1929.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{587532a70a01407584ace00cace6a6a8,
title = "SU‐FF‐J‐43: Technical Evaluation of Respiration Monitoring Devices and Breathing Training Techniques",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare external respiration monitoring devices and breathing training techniques for use in gated imaging and radiotherapy. Method and Materials: Respiration was monitored on four humans with three devices: a spirometer, a pressure gauge inside an adjustable belt, and an infrared marker tracking system. Monitoring was performed under free breathing, with audible instruction, with visual instruction, and with both audible and visual instruction. Each test was executed for two minutes. Belt placement was tested on both the chest and abdomen, while marker placement was on the abdomen alone. Period and amplitude variability was analyzed on all traces to determine optimal belt placement and instruction technique. Individual cycle periods were compared between the three devices to test their correlation. Results: Abdominal belt placement was optimal in all aspects. The uncertainty in periodicity with all devices was 4.6{\%}, 15.3{\%}, 18.6{\%}, and 16.7{\%} for free breathing, visual instruction, audible instruction, and both instruction techniques, respectively. The most consistent relative amplitudes were found using both instruction techniques. Significant drift in amplitude was observed under free breathing conditions. Comparison of individual cycle periods showed that the pressure gauge and infrared marker systems agreed on average within 10 ms, while the spirometer data differed from the others by 60 ms on average. Conclusion: If using a pressure gauge system, the belt should be placed around the patient's abdomen. The most consistent periodicity results from free breathing, while the most consistent amplitude results from visual and audible instruction. The differences in period measurement between the devices can be attributed to the differences in sampling interval, while the consistently larger difference found with the spirometric data most likely is due to the calculation of volume from measured flow. This work is supported in part by Grant ♯ 03‐028‐01‐CCE from the American Cancer Society and Siemens Medical Solutions.",
author = "N. Wink and S. Tenn and T. Solberg",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1118/1.1997589",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "1929",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐J‐43

T2 - Technical Evaluation of Respiration Monitoring Devices and Breathing Training Techniques

AU - Wink, N.

AU - Tenn, S.

AU - Solberg, T.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Purpose: To compare external respiration monitoring devices and breathing training techniques for use in gated imaging and radiotherapy. Method and Materials: Respiration was monitored on four humans with three devices: a spirometer, a pressure gauge inside an adjustable belt, and an infrared marker tracking system. Monitoring was performed under free breathing, with audible instruction, with visual instruction, and with both audible and visual instruction. Each test was executed for two minutes. Belt placement was tested on both the chest and abdomen, while marker placement was on the abdomen alone. Period and amplitude variability was analyzed on all traces to determine optimal belt placement and instruction technique. Individual cycle periods were compared between the three devices to test their correlation. Results: Abdominal belt placement was optimal in all aspects. The uncertainty in periodicity with all devices was 4.6%, 15.3%, 18.6%, and 16.7% for free breathing, visual instruction, audible instruction, and both instruction techniques, respectively. The most consistent relative amplitudes were found using both instruction techniques. Significant drift in amplitude was observed under free breathing conditions. Comparison of individual cycle periods showed that the pressure gauge and infrared marker systems agreed on average within 10 ms, while the spirometer data differed from the others by 60 ms on average. Conclusion: If using a pressure gauge system, the belt should be placed around the patient's abdomen. The most consistent periodicity results from free breathing, while the most consistent amplitude results from visual and audible instruction. The differences in period measurement between the devices can be attributed to the differences in sampling interval, while the consistently larger difference found with the spirometric data most likely is due to the calculation of volume from measured flow. This work is supported in part by Grant ♯ 03‐028‐01‐CCE from the American Cancer Society and Siemens Medical Solutions.

AB - Purpose: To compare external respiration monitoring devices and breathing training techniques for use in gated imaging and radiotherapy. Method and Materials: Respiration was monitored on four humans with three devices: a spirometer, a pressure gauge inside an adjustable belt, and an infrared marker tracking system. Monitoring was performed under free breathing, with audible instruction, with visual instruction, and with both audible and visual instruction. Each test was executed for two minutes. Belt placement was tested on both the chest and abdomen, while marker placement was on the abdomen alone. Period and amplitude variability was analyzed on all traces to determine optimal belt placement and instruction technique. Individual cycle periods were compared between the three devices to test their correlation. Results: Abdominal belt placement was optimal in all aspects. The uncertainty in periodicity with all devices was 4.6%, 15.3%, 18.6%, and 16.7% for free breathing, visual instruction, audible instruction, and both instruction techniques, respectively. The most consistent relative amplitudes were found using both instruction techniques. Significant drift in amplitude was observed under free breathing conditions. Comparison of individual cycle periods showed that the pressure gauge and infrared marker systems agreed on average within 10 ms, while the spirometer data differed from the others by 60 ms on average. Conclusion: If using a pressure gauge system, the belt should be placed around the patient's abdomen. The most consistent periodicity results from free breathing, while the most consistent amplitude results from visual and audible instruction. The differences in period measurement between the devices can be attributed to the differences in sampling interval, while the consistently larger difference found with the spirometric data most likely is due to the calculation of volume from measured flow. This work is supported in part by Grant ♯ 03‐028‐01‐CCE from the American Cancer Society and Siemens Medical Solutions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28744450898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=28744450898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.1997589

DO - 10.1118/1.1997589

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:28744450898

VL - 32

SP - 1929

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -