Dataset Information

Ultrasound Image Quality Comparison Between a Handheld Ultrasound Transducer and Mid-Range Ultrasound Machine.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Not all labor and delivery floors are equipped with ultrasound machines which can serve the needs of both obstetricians and anesthesiologists. This cross-sectional, blinded, randomized observational study compares the image resolution (RES), detail (DET), and quality (IQ) acquired by a handheld ultrasound, the Butterfly iQ, and a mid-range mobile device, the Sonosite M-turbo US (SU), to evaluate their use as a shared resource. Methods: Seventy-four pairs of ultrasound images were obtained for different imaging purposes: 29 for spine (Sp), 15 for transversus abdominis plane (TAP) and 30 for diagnostic obstetrics (OB) purposes. Each location was scanned by both the handheld and mid-range machine, resulting in 148 images. The images were graded by three blinded experienced sonographers on a 10-point Likert scale. Results: The mean difference for Sp imaging favored the handheld device (RES: -0.6 [(95% CI -1.1, -0.1), p = 0.017], DET: -0.8 [(95% CI -1.2, -0.3), p = 0.001] and IQ: -0.9 [95% CI-1.3, -0.4, p = 0.001]). For the TAP images, there was no statistical difference in RES or IQ, but DET was favored in the handheld device (-0.8 [(95% CI-1.2, -0.5), p < 0.001]). For OB images, the SU was favored over the handheld device with RES, DET and IQ with mean differences of 1.7 [(95% CI 1.2, 2.1), p < 0.001], 1.6 [(95% CI 1.2, 2.0], p < 0.001] and 1.1 [(95% CI 0.7, 1.5]), p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: Where resources are limited, a handheld ultrasound may be considered as a potential low-cost alternative to a more expensive ultrasound machine for point of care ultrasonography, better suited to anesthetic vs. diagnostic obstetrical indications.

SUBMITTER: Salimi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9979954 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ultrasound Image Quality Comparison Between a Handheld Ultrasound Transducer and Mid-Range Ultrasound Machine.

Salimi Nayema N Gonzalez-Fiol Antonio A Yanez N David ND Fardelmann Kristen L KL Harmon Emily E Kohari Katherine K Abdel-Razeq Sonya S Magriples Urania U Alian Aymen A

POCUS journal 20220421 1

<b>Objectives</b>: Not all labor and delivery floors are equipped with ultrasound machines which can serve the needs of both obstetricians and anesthesiologists. This cross-sectional, blinded, randomized observational study compares the image resolution (RES), detail (DET), and quality (IQ) acquired by a handheld ultrasound, the Butterfly iQ, and a mid-range mobile device, the Sonosite M-turbo US (SU), to evaluate their use as a shared resource. <b>Methods</b>: Seventy-four pairs of ultrasound i ...[more]

PMID: 36896280

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly becoming ubiquitous across healthcare specialties. This is due to several factors including its portability, immediacy of results to guide clinical decision-making, and lack of radiation exposure to patients. The recent growth of handheld ultrasound devices has improved access to ultrasound for many clinicians. Few studies have directly compared different handheld ultrasound devices among themselves or to cart-based ultrasound machines. We conducted a prospective observational study comparing four common handheld ultrasound devices for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Twenty-four POCUS experts utilized four handheld devices (Butterfly iQ+™ by Butterfly Network Inc., Kosmos™ by EchoNous, Vscan Air™ by General Electric, and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare) to obtain three ultrasound views on the same standardized patients using high- and low-frequency probes.ResultsData were collected from 24 POCUS experts using all 4 handheld devices. No single ultrasound device was superior in all categories. For overall ease of use, the Vscan Air™ was rated highest, followed by the Lumify™. For overall image quality, Lumify™ was rated highest, followed by Kosmos™. The Lumify™ device was rated highest for overall satisfaction, while the Vscan Air™ was rated as the most likely to be purchased personally and carried in one's coat pocket. The top 5 characteristics of handheld ultrasound devices rated as being "very important" were image quality, ease of use, portability, total costs, and availability of different probes.ConclusionsIn a comparison of four common handheld ultrasound devices in the United States, no single handheld ultrasound device was perceived to have all desired characteristics. POCUS experts rated the Lumify™ highest for image quality and Vscan Air™ highest for ease of use. Overall satisfaction was highest with the Lumify™ device, while the most likely to be purchased as a pocket device was the Vscan Air™. Image quality was felt to be the most important characteristic in evaluating handheld ultrasound devices.

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices ("handhelds") have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ + ™ by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius™ by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos™ by EchoNous; TE Air™ by Mindray; Vscan Air™ SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed.ResultsThirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air™ for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air™ for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify™ for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air™, Lumify™, and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air™. The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features.ConclusionsThe overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air™, Lumify™, and Mindray TE Air™when acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air™ was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts.

Project description:BackgroundThe HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of nine different HHUS devices in terms of B-scan quality, device handling, and software features under abdominal imaging conditions.MethodsNine different HHUS devices (Butterfly iQ+, Clarius C3HD3, D5CL Microvue, Philips Lumify, SonoEye Chison, SonoSite iViz, Mindray TE Air, GE Vscan Air, and Youkey Q7) were used in a prospective setting by a total of 12 experienced examiners on the same subjects in each case and then assessed using a detailed questionnaire regarding B-scan quality, handling, and usability of the software. The evaluation was carried out using a point scale (5 points: very good; 1 point: insufficient).ResultsIn the overall evaluation, Vscan Air and SonoEye Chison achieved the best ratings. They achieved nominal ratings between "good" (4 points) and "very good" (5 points). Both devices differed significantly (p < 0.01) from the other seven devices tested. Among the HHUS devices, Clarius C3HD3 and Vscan Air achieved the best results for B-mode quality, D5CL Microvue achieved the best results for device handling, and SonoEye Chison and Vscan Air achieved the best results for software.ConclusionsThis is the first comprehensive study to directly compare different HHUS devices in a head-to-head manner. While the majority of the tested devices demonstrated satisfactory performance, notable discrepancies were observed between them. In particular, the B-scan quality exhibited considerable variation, which may have implications for the clinical application of HHUS. The findings of this study can assist in the selection of an appropriate HHUS device for specific applications, considering the clinical objectives and acknowledging the inherent limitations.

Project description:Backgroundthe use of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) devices is well established in prehospital emergency diagnostics, as well as in intensive care settings. This is based on several studies in which HHUS devices were compared to conventional high-end ultrasonography (HEUS) devices. Nonetheless, there is limited evidence regarding potential variations in B-scan quality among HHUS devices from various manufacturers, and regarding whether any such differences hold clinical significance in intensive care medicine settings.Methodsthis study included the evaluation of eight HHUS devices sourced from diverse manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of five previously defined sonographic questions (volume status/inferior vena cava, pleural effusion, pulmonary B-lines, gallbladder, and needle tracking in situ) were recorded with all devices. The analogue recording of the same pathologies with a HEUS device served as gold standard. The corresponding findings (HHUS and HEUS) were then played side by side and evaluated by sixteen intensive care physicians experienced in sonography. The B-scan quality and the clinical significance of the HHUS were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient).Resultsboth in assessing the quality of B-scans and in their ability to answer clinical questions, the HHUS achieved convincing results-regardless of the manufacturer. For example, only 8.6% (B-scan quality) and 9.8% (clinical question) of all submitted assessments received an "insufficient" rating. One HHUS device showed a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average points score in the assessment of B-scan quality (3.9 ± 0.65 points) and in the evaluation of clinical significance (4.03 ± 0.73 points), compared to the other devices.ConclusionsHHUS systems are able to reliably answer various clinical intensive care questions and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS devices. Irrespective of this, the present study was able to demonstrate relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Dataset Information

Ultrasound Image Quality Comparison Between a Handheld Ultrasound Transducer and Mid-Range Ultrasound Machine.

Publications

Ultrasound Image Quality Comparison Between a Handheld Ultrasound Transducer and Mid-Range Ultrasound Machine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets