Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Continuing Education
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Continuing Education
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleImaging

Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera

Hend Komber, David Little, Sarah Cade, Richard Graham and Stewart Redman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology June 2022, 50 (2) 132-136; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.121.262627
Hend Komber
Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, Bath, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Little
Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, Bath, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Cade
Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, Bath, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Graham
Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, Bath, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stewart Redman
Department of Radiology, Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, Bath, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Our aim was to explore whether the 360° γ-camera design of the Veriton-CT scanner adversely affects the rate of scan noncompletion due to claustrophobia or other patient experience factors, when compared with a standard dual-head Discovery NM/CT 670 γ-camera. Methods: This was a single-center prospective study of all nuclear medicine studies on either of the 2 γ-cameras. It was recorded whether the patient completed the scan as protocoled or, because of claustrophobia, had a shortened scan or no scan. The patients were also offered a patient experience questionnaire, with domains of comfort, scan time, scan noise, and claustrophobia assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Over a 4-mo period, 296 patients were scanned on the Discovery and 274 patients on the Veriton-CT. There was a scan noncompletion rate, due to claustrophobia, of 1.35% for the Discovery and 1.46% for the Veriton-CT. Of the 570 patients involved, 354 (62%) returned their questionnaires. There was no statistical difference between the responses for comfort, scan time, scan noise, or feelings of claustrophobia. Conclusion: The study provides evidence that the 360° γ-camera design of the Veriton-CT does not lead to a significantly increased scan failure rate due to claustrophobia and that there is no change in the subjective experience for patients.

  • claustrophobia
  • Discovery 670
  • γ-camera
  • patient experience
  • Veriton-CT

Footnotes

  • Published online Nov. 8, 2021.

View Full Text

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

SNMMI members

SNMMI Member Login

Login to the site using your SNMMI member credentials

Individuals

Non-Member Login

Login as an individual user

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 50 (2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 50, Issue 2
June 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera
Hend Komber, David Little, Sarah Cade, Richard Graham, Stewart Redman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2022, 50 (2) 132-136; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.121.262627

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparing the Patient Experience Between a 360° γ-Camera and a Conventional Dual-Head γ-Camera
Hend Komber, David Little, Sarah Cade, Richard Graham, Stewart Redman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2022, 50 (2) 132-136; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.121.262627
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Practical Technique to Improve Visualization of Sentinel Nodes in the Axillary Region on Breast Lymphoscintigraphy: Medial Breast Traction by Patient
  • Determining the Minimal Required Ultra-Low-Dose CT Dose Level for Reliable Attenuation Correction of 18F-FDG PET/CT: A Phantom Study
Show more Imaging

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • claustrophobia
  • Discovery 670
  • γ-camera
  • patient experience
  • Veriton-CT
SNMMI

© 2022 Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Powered by HighWire