• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.433-440
• /
• 2019

Background Mastectomy in male transgender patients is an important (and often the first) step toward physical manhood. At our department, mastectomies in transgender patients have been performed for several decades. Methods Recorded data were collected and analyzed for all male transgender patients undergoing mastectomy over a period of 24 years at our department. Results In total, 268 gender-reassigning mastectomies were performed. Several different mastectomy techniques (areolar incision, n=172; sub-mammary incision, n=96) were used according to patients' habitus and breast features. Corresponding to algorithms presented in the current literature, certain breast qualities were matched with a particular mastectomy technique. Overall, small breasts with marginal ptosis and good skin elasticity allowed small areolar incisions as a method of access for glandular removal. In contrast, large breasts and those with heavy ptosis or poor skin elasticity often required larger incisions for breast amputation. The secondary correction rate (38%) was high for gender reassignment mastectomy, as is also reflected by data in the current literature. Secondary correction frequently involved revision of chest wall recontouring, suggesting inadequate removal of the mammary tissue, as well as scar revision, which may reflect intense traction during wound healing (36%). Secondary corrections were performed more often after using small areolar incision techniques (48%) than after using large sub-mammary incisions (21%). Conclusions Choosing the suitable mastectomy technique for each patient requires careful individual evaluation of breast features such as size, degree of ptosis, and skin elasticity in order to maximize patient satisfaction and minimize secondary revisions.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.178-184
• /
• 2015

The Markus ionization chamber(R) is a small plane parallel ionization chamber widely used in clinical electron beam dosimetry. Plane parallel chambers were recommended for low energy electron dosimetry with the beam quality at $R_{50}<4.0g/cm^2$ (${\bar{E}}{\approx}10MeV$) according to TRS-398 protocol. However, the quality correction factors ($k_{Q,Q_0}$) of the Markus chamber was not presented in TRS-398 protocol for electron beam quality at $R_{50}<2.0g/cm^2$ (${\bar{E}}{\approx}4MeV$). In this study, the $k_{Q,Q_0}$ factors of the Markus chambers (PTW-34045) for beam qualities at $R_{50}=1.0$, 1.4, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and $5.0g/cm^2$ were determined by Monte Carlo calculations (DOSRZnrc/EGSnrc) and the dosimetric formalism of quality correction factor. The derived $k_{Q,Q_0}$ values were evaluated using the produced data based on TRS-398 and TG-51 protocols and known values for the Markus chamber.

• Tunnel and Underground Space
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.186-192
• /
• 2018

The German Tunnelling Committee (DAUB) recently published new recommendations for face support calculations; Zdenek Zizka and Markus Thewes of Ruhr University Bochum actively discuss and explain these new recommendations where these recommendations are intended to assist in choosing between various calculation methods which are also dependent on ground conditions. The guidelines also discuss important scientific approaches with face stability calculations, mainly those due to earth pressure and groundwater pressure on the tunnel face. This paper aims to explain these recommendations through Zdenek Zizak and Markus Thewes's discussion on these Tunnel Face Support Calculation Methods.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.94-101
• /
• 1994

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering Conference
• /
• 2005.05a
• /
• pp.978-981
• /
• 2005

The vibration analysis of damped sandwich beam is conducted using finite element method. The equation of motion presented by Mead and Markus is used to formulate FEM. Also as the thickness of the core in the damped sandwich beam goes to zero, conventional beam theory based on the transformed-section method and the equation of Mead and Markus are compared. According to the change of thickness and loss factor of the core, the forced frequency response of beam is calculated and discussed. And then using the half-power band width method, the damping ratio of each mode is calculated and discussed about each case.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.176-184
• /
• 1995

It is very useful benefits to use the megavoltage photon beams in deep site tumor radiotherapy for skin sparing effects. But, In some cases of head and mock tumors, it is often necessary to use spoiler for rapid buildup on skin region. A spoiler with tissue equivalent material to be moved between the patients and the collimator can increase or control the skin dose and buildup region due to position and thickness of the spoiler was measured. Then, the effect of spoiler on skin dose and build up region in protruded tumor of head and neck was evaluated quantitatively. The measurements were abtained with PTW 2334 chamber (Markus type) on a polystylene phantom for 6MV x-ray from an accelerator.

• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2005.09a
• /
• pp.63-64
• /
• 2005

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.145-152
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In ionization-chamber dosimetry for high-dose-rate electron beams-above 20 mGy/pulse-the ion-recombination correction methods recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) are not appropriate, because they overestimate the correction factor. In this study, we suggest a practical ion-recombination correction method, based on Boag's improved model, and apply it to reference dosimetry for electron beams of about 100 mGy/pulse generated from an electron linear accelerator (LINAC). Methods: This study employed a theoretical model of the ion-collection efficiency developed by Boag and physical parameters used by Laitano et al. We recalculated the ion-recombination correction factors using two-voltage analysis and obtained an empirical fitting formula to represent the results. Next, we compared the calculated correction factors with published results for the same calculation conditions. Additionally, we performed dosimetry for electron beams from a 6 MeV electron LINAC using an Advanced Markus^® ionization chamber to determine the reference dose in water at the source-to-surface distance (SSD)=100 cm, using the correction factors obtained in this study. Results: The values of the correction factors obtained in this work are in good agreement with the published data. The measured dose-per-pulse for electron beams at the depth of maximum dose for SSD=100 cm was 115 mGy/pulse, with a standard uncertainty of 2.4%. In contrast, the k_s values determined using the IAEA and AAPM methods are, respectively, 8.9% and 8.2% higher than our results. Conclusions: The new method based on Boag's improved model provides a practical method of determining the ion-recombination correction factors for high dose-per-pulse radiation beams up to about 120 mGy/pulse. This method can be applied to electron beams with even higher dose-per-pulse, subject to independent verification.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.322-329
• /
• 2003

Purpose: It is difficult to exactly determine the surface dose and the dose distribution In buildup region of high energy X-rays by using the conventional ion chamber. The aim of this study Is to evaluate the accuracy of widely used dosimetry systems to measure the surface dose and the depth of maximum dose (d$_{max}$). Materials and Methods: We measured the percent depth dose (PDD) from the surface to the d$_{max}$ in either a water phantom or in a solid water phantom using TLD-100 chips, thimble type ion chamber, diode detector, diamond detector and Markus parallel plate ion chamber for 6 MV and 15 MV X-rays, 10$\times$10 cm$^{2}$, at SSD=100cm. We analysed the surface dose and the d$_{max}$. In order to verify the accuracy of the TLD data, we executed the Monte Carlo simulation for 5 MV X-ray beams. Results: The surface doses In 6 MV and IS MV X-rays were 29.31% and 23.36% ior Markus parallel plate ion chamber, 37.17$\%$ and 24.01$\%$ for TLD, 34.87$\%$ and 24.06$\%$ for diamond detector, 38.13$\%$ and 27.8$\%$ for diode detector, and 47.92$\%$ and 35.01$\%$ for thimble type ion chamber, respectively. in Monte Carlo simulation for 6 MV X-rays, the surface dose was 36.22$\%$, which Is similar to the 37.17$\%$ of the TLD measurement data. The d$_{max}$ In 6 WV and 15 MV X-rays was 14$\~$16 mm and 27$\~$29 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the d$_{max}$ among the detectors. Conclusion: There was a remarkable difference in the surface dose among the detectors. The Markus parallel plate chamber showed the most accurate result. The surface dose of the thimble ion chamber was 10$\%$ higher than that of other detectors. We suggest that the correction should be made when the surface dose of the thimble ion chamber Is used for the treatment planning ion the supeficial tumors. All the detectors used In our study showed no difference in the d$_{max}$.