Comparison of the quality of B-scan ultrasound in modern high-end devices

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose The quality of an ultrasound device’s B-scan mode is decisive in obtaining clear and informative images. High demands are placed upon ultrasound devices, particularly in cases where evidence of small lesions of parenchymal organs is being gathered.

Methods We tested the quality of the B-scan mode in ultrasound devices of 7 different manufacturers. We performed ultrasound examinations of 3 predefined abdominal sections on 4 healthy subjects with 7 different ultrasound devices. Documentation was compiled digitally by recording video sequences. Any characteristics identifying the manufacturer were removed. Subsequently, the sequences were organized into corresponding pairs. The resulting 252 video pairs were shown side by side to a panel of 10 experienced ultrasound examiners who evaluated the quality of the scans by way of direct visual comparison.

Results Two of the 7 devices were clearly judged to be of higher quality. In part, the differences in the overall evaluation and within the subgroups reached levels of statistical significance. The ranking of the tested devices did not correlate with their suggested retail prices.

Conclusion There are relevant differences in the quality of the B-scan mode of modern high-end devices. The suggested retail prices do not correlate with the B-scan quality of the ultrasound devices.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Für eine aussagefähige abdominelle Sonografie ist die Qualität des B-Bildes maßgeblich. Insbesondere zum Nachweis kleiner parenchymatöser Läsionen in Leber oder Pankreas werden hohe Anforderungen an das Sonografiegerät gestellt.

Material und Methoden 4 gesunde Probanden erhielten Ultraschalluntersuchungen mit 7 verschiedenen Ultraschallgeräten in 3 definierten abdominellen Standardschnitten. Die Dokumentation erfolgte digital durch Aufzeichnung von kurzen Videosequenzen. Es erfolgten eine Verblindung der Videos hinsichtlich der Herstellerangaben und schließlich das paarweise Nebeneinanderstellen korrespondierender Sequenzen. Die so entstandenen 252 Videopärchen wurden von 10 erfahrenen Ultraschalluntersuchern hinsichtlich der Bildqualität im direkten visuellen Vergleich bewertet.

Ergebnisse 2 der 7 untersuchten Geräte kristallisierten sich als klare Favoriten in Qualität der B-Bild-Darstellung heraus. Die Unterschiede zeigten sowohl in der Gesamtbetrachtung als auch in der Subgruppenanalyse teilweise statistische Signifikanz. Die Rangfolge der untersuchten Geräte korrelierte nicht mit dem empfohlenen Verkaufspreis.

Schlussfolgerung Es gibt deutliche Unterschiede in der B-Bild Qualität bei Sonografiegeräten unterschiedlicher Hersteller. Der empfohlene Verkaufspreis korreliert hierbei nicht mit der ermittelten B-Bild-Qualität.

• References

• 1 Doblhoff G, Satrapa J, Coulthard P. Recognising small image quality differences for ultrasound probes and the potential of misdiagnosis due to undetected side lobes. Ultrasound 2017; 25: 35-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Dudley N, Russell S, Ward B. et al. The BMUS guidelines for regular quality assurance testing of ultrasound scanners. Ultrasound 2014; 22: 6-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Mannila V, Sipilä O. Phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound. Acta Radiol Short Rep 2013; 2: 1-4
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Sipilä O, Mannila V, Vartiainen E. Quality assurance in diagnostic ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80: 519-525
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Thijssen JM, Weijers G, de Korte CL. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33: 460-471
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Kollmann C. Results of a study of quality control of diagnostic ultrasound equipment. Ultraschall in Med 1995; 16: 206-209
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Alasaarela E, Koivukangas J. Evaluation of image quality of ultrasound scanners in medical diagnostics. J Ultrasound Med 1990; 9: 23-34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Leitgeb N, Schuy S. Measuring the image quality of ultrasound B scanners. Ultraschall in Med 1984; 5: 2-5
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Bozzato A, Loika A, Hornung J. et al. Comparison of conventional B-scan, tissue harmonic imaging, compound imaging and tissue harmonic compound imaging in neck lesion characterisation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267: 1593-1598
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Yen CL, Jeng CM, Yang SS. The benefits of comparing conventional sonography, real-time spatial compound sonography, tissue harmonic sonography, and tissue harmonic compound sonography of hepatic lesions. Clin Imaging 2008; 32: 11-15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Chiou SY, Forsberg F, Fox TB. et al. Comparing differential tissue harmonic imaging with tissue harmonic and fundamental gray scale imaging of the liver. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26: 1557-1563
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Calabrese E, La Seta F, Buccellato A. et al. Crohn’s disease: a comparative prospective study of transabdominal ultrasonography, small intestine contrast ultrasonography, and small bowel enema. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005; 11: 139-145
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Schmidt T, Hohl C, Haage P. et al. Phase-inversion tissue harmonic imaging compared to fundamental B-mode ultrasound in the evaluation of the pathology of large and small bowel. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 2021-2030
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kim SH, Lee JM, Kim KG. et al. Comparison of fundamental sonography, tissue-harmonic sonography, fundamental compound sonography, and tissue-harmonic compound sonography for focal hepatic lesions. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 2444-2453
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Niwa K, Hirooka Y, Niwa Y. et al. Comparison of image quality between electronic and mechanical radial scanning echoendoscopes in pancreatic diseases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19: 454-459
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Rabenandrasana HA, Furukawa A, Furuichi K. et al. Comparison between tissue harmonic imaging and liver-specific late-phase contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion imaging in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis. Radiat Med 2004; 22: 90-97
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Blaivas M, Brannam L, Theodoro D. Ultrasound image quality comparison between an inexpensive handheld emergency department (ED) ultrasound machine and a large mobile ED ultrasound system. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 778-781
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Fischer T, Filimonow S, Taupitz M. et al. Image quality and detection of pathology by ultrasound: comparison of B-mode ultrasound with photopic imaging and tissue harmonic imaging alone and in combination. Rofo 2002; 174: 1313-1317
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Stiskal M, Steinbach R, Obholzer G. et al. Tissue harmonic imaging sonography. Is the image quality in routine abdominal ulstrasound improved?. Rofo 2000; 172: 1006-1010
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Blaivas M, DeBehnke D, Sierzenski PR. et al. Tissue harmonic imaging improves organ visualization in trauma ultrasound when compared with standard ultrasound mode. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9: 48-53
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Wynd KP, Smith HM, Jacob AK. et al. Ultrasound machine comparison: an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2009; 34: 349-356
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Dalla Pozza R, Loeff M, Kozlik-Feldmann R. et al. Hand-carried ultrasound devices in pediatric cardiology: clinical experience with three different devices in 110 patients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010; 23: 1231-1237
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol 2005; 173: 2013-2016
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Ehrenstein BP, Froh S, Schlottmann K. et al. To eat or not to eat? Effect of fasting prior to abdominal sonography examinations on the quality of imaging under routine conditions: a randomized, examiner-blinded trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 1048-1054
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar