Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices
Background: Handheld ultrasound devices are increasingly used by medical professionals for bedside ultrasound-guided interventions. Especially for vascular access procedures, the width of the imaging plane, known as the slice thickness or elevational beam width is a prominent source for misinterpret...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | WFUMB Ultrasound Open |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949668323000095 |
| _version_ | 1797237900960595968 |
|---|---|
| author | Harm J. Scholten Gert Weijers Marco de Wild Hendrikus H.M. Korsten Chris L. de Korte R. Arthur Bouwman |
| author_facet | Harm J. Scholten Gert Weijers Marco de Wild Hendrikus H.M. Korsten Chris L. de Korte R. Arthur Bouwman |
| author_sort | Harm J. Scholten |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Handheld ultrasound devices are increasingly used by medical professionals for bedside ultrasound-guided interventions. Especially for vascular access procedures, the width of the imaging plane, known as the slice thickness or elevational beam width is a prominent source for misinterpretation. A wide slice thickness can lead to the interpretation that 2 objects (i.e. needle and vessel) are on the same plane while in fact they are not and thereby negatively influencing the performance of in-plane ultrasound-guided interventions. Therefore, the beam profiles of three popular handheld US devices are tested and compared to a conventional US device. Methods: The GE VScan, Philips Lumify and Butterfly IQ + are tested using a slice phantom to determine the slice thickness. For comparison, a Philips Affiniti machine was investigated. Both linear and curved array settings were analyzed. In a slice phantom, a diffuse scattering plane at an angle of exactly 45° is scanned. For each imaging depth, the vertical height of the imaged rectangle corresponds to the slice thickness at that depth. Main results: For the linear array transducers, the focus depth ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 cm. At the focus depth, all transducers have a reasonable slice thickness of approximately 1 mm. More superficially, the slice thickness varies between 1 and 4 mm. The curved array probes have larger focus depths, ranging from 2.7 to 7.3 cm. The slice thickness at focus depth varies between 1.4 and 3.8 mm, but at 2 cm depth is even more than 5 mm. Conclusions: The slice thickness of handheld ultrasound transducers varies between the different devices, and can be suboptimal for superficial in-plane ultrasound-guided interventions. The larger slice thickness of the curved array settings may complicate in-plane guidance. Handheld ultrasound users should be aware of the beam characteristics of their devices to optimize guidance for interventions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T17:27:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-860ab522b4004da5a74ffc0cc7adb3a4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2949-6683 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T17:27:06Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | WFUMB Ultrasound Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-860ab522b4004da5a74ffc0cc7adb3a42024-03-28T06:39:44ZengElsevierWFUMB Ultrasound Open2949-66832023-12-0112100009Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devicesHarm J. Scholten0Gert Weijers1Marco de Wild2Hendrikus H.M. Korsten3Chris L. de Korte4R. Arthur Bouwman5Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Flux building, Groene Loper 19, 5612 AP, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Corresponding author. Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.Department of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsDepartment of IGT and Ultrasound Devices & Systems, Philips Medical Research, HTC34, 5656AE, Eindhoven, the NetherlandsDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Flux building, Groene Loper 19, 5612 AP, Eindhoven, the NetherlandsDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Flux building, Groene Loper 19, 5612 AP, Eindhoven, the NetherlandsBackground: Handheld ultrasound devices are increasingly used by medical professionals for bedside ultrasound-guided interventions. Especially for vascular access procedures, the width of the imaging plane, known as the slice thickness or elevational beam width is a prominent source for misinterpretation. A wide slice thickness can lead to the interpretation that 2 objects (i.e. needle and vessel) are on the same plane while in fact they are not and thereby negatively influencing the performance of in-plane ultrasound-guided interventions. Therefore, the beam profiles of three popular handheld US devices are tested and compared to a conventional US device. Methods: The GE VScan, Philips Lumify and Butterfly IQ + are tested using a slice phantom to determine the slice thickness. For comparison, a Philips Affiniti machine was investigated. Both linear and curved array settings were analyzed. In a slice phantom, a diffuse scattering plane at an angle of exactly 45° is scanned. For each imaging depth, the vertical height of the imaged rectangle corresponds to the slice thickness at that depth. Main results: For the linear array transducers, the focus depth ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 cm. At the focus depth, all transducers have a reasonable slice thickness of approximately 1 mm. More superficially, the slice thickness varies between 1 and 4 mm. The curved array probes have larger focus depths, ranging from 2.7 to 7.3 cm. The slice thickness at focus depth varies between 1.4 and 3.8 mm, but at 2 cm depth is even more than 5 mm. Conclusions: The slice thickness of handheld ultrasound transducers varies between the different devices, and can be suboptimal for superficial in-plane ultrasound-guided interventions. The larger slice thickness of the curved array settings may complicate in-plane guidance. Handheld ultrasound users should be aware of the beam characteristics of their devices to optimize guidance for interventions.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949668323000095Slice thicknessBeam width artefactHandheld ultrasoundUltrasound-guided vascular accessPoint of care ultrasound (POCUS)Ultrasound physics |
| spellingShingle | Harm J. Scholten Gert Weijers Marco de Wild Hendrikus H.M. Korsten Chris L. de Korte R. Arthur Bouwman Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices WFUMB Ultrasound Open Slice thickness Beam width artefact Handheld ultrasound Ultrasound-guided vascular access Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) Ultrasound physics |
| title | Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices |
| title_full | Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices |
| title_fullStr | Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices |
| title_short | Differences in ultrasound elevational beam width (slice thickness) between popular handheld devices |
| title_sort | differences in ultrasound elevational beam width slice thickness between popular handheld devices |
| topic | Slice thickness Beam width artefact Handheld ultrasound Ultrasound-guided vascular access Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) Ultrasound physics |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949668323000095 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT harmjscholten differencesinultrasoundelevationalbeamwidthslicethicknessbetweenpopularhandhelddevices AT gertweijers differencesinultrasoundelevationalbeamwidthslicethicknessbetweenpopularhandhelddevices AT marcodewild differencesinultrasoundelevationalbeamwidthslicethicknessbetweenpopularhandhelddevices AT hendrikushmkorsten differencesinultrasoundelevationalbeamwidthslicethicknessbetweenpopularhandhelddevices AT chrisldekorte differencesinultrasoundelevationalbeamwidthslicethicknessbetweenpopularhandhelddevices AT rarthurbouwman differencesinultrasoundelevationalbeamwidthslicethicknessbetweenpopularhandhelddevices |