4.4 Article

Performance evaluation of cylindrical fiber optic light diffusers for biomedical applications

期刊

LASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 348-351

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lsm.20031

关键词

light delivery; optical radiation measurement; photodynamic therapy; interstitial laser hyperthermia; interstitial photocoagulation

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA90524-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA090524] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: Dosimetry for intracavity and interstitial light delivery requires next to the knowledge of tissue optical properties and models describing light propagation in tissue also exact knowledge of the spatial light source emission characteristics. However, the emission characteristics of cylindrical diffusers are often ill defined by the manufacturer, and not regularly determined by the end user, thus limiting the attainable dosimetry accuracy. Study Design/Materials and Methods: Commercial cylindrical diffusers, with active diffusive lengths of 12 cm and outer diameters of less than or equal to1 mm, were evaluated regarding their photometric emission characteristics. In addition to traditional tests of homogeneity such as light intensity emitted along the diffuser length and around its circumference (polar angle), azimuth emission was also measured. Results: It was demonstrated that the light emission distribution is specific to the diffuser manufacturer, and while good polar isotropy is often attained, azimuth isotropy can vary by more than a factor of 5. In hollow organs the latter can result in over treatment of tissue distal to the actual placement of the cylindrical diffusers. Conclusions: To enable light dosimetry and treatment planning for applications such as photodynamic therapy or interstitial laser hyperthermia or photocoagulation, standardization of emission properties reporting for optical fiber diffusers is required. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据