Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 10, 2026

10:19
3D Kinematic Gait Analysis for Preclinical Studies in Rodents
Published on: August 3, 2019
11.2K
Motion study on upright patient positioning in walk-through PET: evaluation in a clinical setting
Rabia Aziz1, Florence Marie Muller2,3, Nadia Withofs4
1Department of Electronics and Information Systems, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. rabia.aziz@ugent.be.
EJNMMI Physics
|November 27, 2025
Summary
The upright walk-through PET scanner shows promise for patient throughput but requires motion management. Ergonomic supports and breath-holding protocols can reduce motion, though full 30-second breath-holds are challenging for most patients.
Area of Science:
- Medical Imaging
- Nuclear Medicine
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- The novel upright walk-through PET (WT-PET) scanner offers improved patient throughput over conventional cylindrical PET systems.
- Upright imaging presents unique patient motion challenges, necessitating evaluation of motion reduction strategies.
- Ergonomic features like headrests and hand supports are incorporated into WT-PET designs to minimize motion.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate rigid body motion (head, shoulders, chest, abdomen) in patients using a WT-PET mock-up.
- To assess the effectiveness of ergonomic features and breath-holding in reducing motion during upright PET imaging.
- To compare motion in WT-PET imaging with conventional PET scans and healthy volunteers.
Main Methods:
- Motion data collected from 30 patients on WT-PET, 13 patients on conventional PET, and 12 healthy volunteers on both systems.
- Infrared markers tracked 3D positions during 30-second normal breathing and breath-hold periods in WT-PET mock-up.
- Motion quantified using Euclidean distance (ED) of marker centroids; conventional PET used 8-minute acquisitions.
Main Results:
- Breath-holding reduced mean abdominal motion by 24% in WT-PET patients (2.31 mm to 1.76 mm).
- Patient motion on WT-PET was higher than healthy volunteers (head: 3x, abdomen: 36%).
- WT-PET patients showed slightly lower head motion but 44% lower abdominal motion compared to conventional PET patients.
Conclusions:
- The WT-PET scanner introduces distinct motion control challenges requiring specific management strategies.
- Ergonomic supports and breath-holding protocols effectively reduce motion, but full 30-second breath-holds are not feasible for most patients.
- A two-step 15-second acquisition protocol is feasible for ~50% of patients, and comparisons confirm WT-PET's feasibility and limitations.

