RESUMO
Objective: The purpose of this research is to clarify whether the current situation of the lower back pain prevention education of manual therapists is different between the colleges for sighted persons and those for the visually impaired. This research investigated the current situation of the guidance using an up-and-down type treatment table and the current situation of lower back pain prevention education at manual therapist colleges in Japan. Method: A mail-in survey was conducted for 85 colleges providing a manual therapist training program. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were used to calculate proportions. The type of colleges and implementation of lower back pain prevention education were chi-square tested against other questions. Results: Of the 52 colleges that responded to the survey form, those for sighted persons which offered lower back pain prevention education numbered 8 of 8 (100%), while such institutions for the visually impaired were 22 of 44 (50%) (p<0.001). Among the 51 colleges responding to the question about the up-and-down treatment table, 1 in 8 (12.5%) institutions for the sighted used the device, as did 43 of 43 (100%) (p<0.001) institutions for the visually impaired. Of the 44 colleges which use the up-and-down type treatment table, 38 (86.4%) taught the height of the treatment table and 43 (97.7%) taught the posture, but there was no common guidance method used by a majority of the colleges. Among the 44 colleges using the up-and-down type treatment table, those which provided lower back pain prevention education and taught the height of the treatment table were 23 of 23 (100％) (p＝0.008). Discussion: Manual therapist colleges have paid attention to teaching a posture, but that instruction is not connected to lower back pain prevention by teaching the height of a treatment table. Training colleges need a common teaching method to give systematic lower back pain prevention education. Conclusion: Manual therapist training differs by environment for sighted and visually impaired students, suggesting that teaching method of lower back pain prevention education is different.
RESUMO
Objective: The purpose of this research is to clarify whether the current situation of the lower back pain prevention education of manual therapists is different between the colleges for sighted persons and those for the visually impaired. This research investigated the current situation of the guidance using an up-and-down type treatment table and the current situation of lower back pain prevention education at manual therapist colleges in Japan. Method: A mail-in survey was conducted for 85 colleges providing a manual therapist training program. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were used to calculate proportions. The type of colleges and implementation of lower back pain prevention education were chi-square tested against other questions. Results: Of the 52 colleges that responded to the survey form, those for sighted persons which offered lower back pain prevention education numbered 8 of 8 (100%), while such institutions for the visually impaired were 22 of 44 (50%) (p<0.001). Among the 51 colleges responding to the question about the up-and-down treatment table, 1 in 8 (12.5%) institutions for the sighted used the device, as did 43 of 43 (100%) (p<0.001) institutions for the visually impaired. Of the 44 colleges which use the up-and-down type treatment table, 38 (86.4%) taught the height of the treatment table and 43 (97.7%) taught the posture, but there was no common guidance method used by a majority of the colleges. Among the 44 colleges using the up-and-down type treatment table, those which provided lower back pain prevention education and taught the height of the treatment table were 23 of 23 (100％) (p＝0.008). Discussion: Manual therapist colleges have paid attention to teaching a posture, but that instruction is not connected to lower back pain prevention by teaching the height of a treatment table. Training colleges need a common teaching method to give systematic lower back pain prevention education. Conclusion: Manual therapist training differs by environment for sighted and visually impaired students, suggesting that teaching method of lower back pain prevention education is different.
RESUMO
Objective To investigate the influence of treatment table with C-arm and immobilization device in IMRT planning accuracy, and to explore methods to solve this problem.Methods The solid water slabs and the ionization chamber was scanned and images were transmitted to the treatment planning system (TPS).Beam parameters in the TPS were set with 6 MV beam and 100 MU exposures were used.Measurements were performed at two different sizes of 5 cm×5 cm and 10 cm×10 cm.The gantry was rotated through angles from 0° to 180° with measurements taken at 5° increments.The measure point was set at center of the ionization chamber' measure point, which was also the central point of planning.The center axis of Matrix was aligned with the center of couch and was irradiated in accordance with the same conditions.OmniPro-FmRT software was used to compare and analyze the dose distribution of the radiation field of measurement and the treatment planning system output.Using the function of add constant value to find the appropriate coefficient to improve the plan total dose.The dose distributions for each beam in IMRT plans which was increased or unincreased total dose were measured for 6 patients with pelvic tumor respectively.Results In radiation therapy, treatment couch and immobilization device may attenuate radiotherapy dose.The impact of the incident range from 65°-70° and 115°-125° were the largest.Increasing the total dose of the treatment plan by 2％ could compensate the attenuation of the treatment table and immobilization device.Conclusions In radiation therapy, the impact of the incident range from 65°-70°, 115°-125° and another side of 290°-295° and 230°-245° should be avoided.The attenuation should not be neglected in the TPS and dose should be compensated by adjusting beams' MU.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recompression therapy is well established in the treatment of decompression sickness (DCS) including spinal type. However it was not confirm whether each United State Navy (USN) treatment tables had different therapeutic effect in spinal type of DCS. The purpose of this study is to find if the use of different tables results in a different outcome in spinal type of DCS. And we want to reconfirm an unsatisfactory cure rate of USN table 6. METHODS: We applied different USN treatment tables, 6, 6a and 6a1, to spinal type of DCS for 10 years. 68 patients with spinal type of DCS were treated with recompression therapy, 16 patients by table 6, 31 by 6a, and 21 by 6a1. We reviewed the outcome of motor power before and after each treatment. And we investigated age, diving experience, depth of dive, bottom time of dive, and onset of treatment before the treatment in each treatment group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between each treatment group in age, diving experience, depth of dive, bottom time of dive, onset of treatment and the grade of motor power before the treatment. Marked motor power improvements were noticed in 59.6% (table 6; 18.7%, 6a; 74.2%, and 6a1; 81%). There were significant differences of motor power improvement between groups 6 and 6a (p=0.0057), 6 and 6a1 (p=0.0053) and 6a and 6a1 (p=0.0139). CONCLUSIONS: We think that table 6a1 should be used in spinal type of DCS. And table 6 is not useful in spinal type DCS.