Herzog Moritz, Arsova Maia, Matthes Katja, Husman Julia, Toppe David, Kober Julian, Trittler Tönnis, Swist Daniel, Dorausch Edgar Manfred Gustav, Urbig Antje, Fettweis Gerhard Paul, Brinkmann Franz, Martens Nora, Schmelz Renate, Kampfrath Nicole, Hampe Jochen
Else Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, TU Dresden Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Medical Department 1, University Hospital Dresden, TU Dresden Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Ultraschall Med. 2024 Aug;45(4):405-411. doi: 10.1055/a-2243-9767. Epub 2024 Mar 1.
Since handheld ultrasound devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, objective criteria to determine image quality are needed. We therefore conducted a comparison of objective quality measures and clinical performance.
A comparison of handheld devices (Butterfly IQ+, Clarius HD, Clarius HD3, Philips Lumify, GE VScan Air) and workstations (GE Logiq E10, Toshiba Aplio 500) was performed using a phantom. As a comparison, clinical investigations were performed by two experienced ultrasonographers by measuring the resolution of anatomical structures in the liver, pancreas, and intestine in ten subjects.
Axial full width at half maximum resolution (FWHM) of 100µm phantom pins at depths between one and twelve cm ranged from 0.6-1.9mm without correlation to pin depth. Lateral FWHM resolution ranged from 1.3-8.7mm and was positively correlated with depth (r=0.6). Axial and lateral resolution differed between devices (p<0.001) with the lowest median lateral resolution observed in the E10 (5.4mm) and the lowest axial resolution (1.6mm) for the IQ+ device. Although devices showed no significant differences in most clinical applications, ultrasonographers were able to differentiate a median of two additional layers in the wall of the sigmoid colon and one additional structure in segmental portal fields (p<0.05) using cartwheel devices.
While handheld devices showed superior or similar performance in the phantom and routine measurements, workstations still provided superior clinical imaging and resolution of anatomical substructures, indicating a lack of objective measurements to evaluate clinical ultrasound devices.
由于手持式超声设备越来越普遍，因此需要确定图像质量的客观标准。因此，我们对客观质量指标和临床性能进行了比较。
使用体模对手持设备（Butterfly IQ+、Clarius HD、Clarius HD3、飞利浦Lumify、GE VScan Air）和工作站（GE Logiq E10、东芝Aplio 500）进行比较。作为对照，由两名经验丰富的超声检查人员对十名受试者的肝脏、胰腺和肠道中的解剖结构分辨率进行临床研究。
在1至12厘米深度处，100μm体模针的轴向半高宽分辨率（FWHM）范围为0.6 - 1.9毫米，与针深度无关。横向FWHM分辨率范围为1.3 - 8.7毫米，且与深度呈正相关（r = 0.6）。不同设备之间的轴向和横向分辨率存在差异（p < 0.001），其中E10的横向分辨率中位数最低（5.4毫米），IQ+设备的轴向分辨率最低（1.6毫米）。尽管在大多数临床应用中设备之间没有显著差异，但超声检查人员使用扇扫设备能够在乙状结肠壁中多分辨出中位数为两层的结构，在门静脉分支区域多分辨出一个结构（p < 0.05）。
虽然手持式设备在体模和常规测量中表现出优越或相似的性能，但工作站仍能提供更优越的临床成像和解剖亚结构分辨率，这表明缺乏评估临床超声设备的客观测量方法。
