Search

Background: The 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. Methods: Nine 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). Results: In 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. Conclusions: This 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to the curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the exclusion of hepatic metastasis using cross-sectional imaging is mandatory. The Doppler perfusion index (DPI) of the liver is a promising method for detecting occult liver metastases, but the underlying visceral duplex sonography is critically viewed in terms of its reproducibility. The aim of this study was to investigate systematically the reproducibility of the measured variables, the calculated blood flow, and the DPI. Between February and September 2023, two examinations were performed on 80 subjects within a period of 0–30 days and at two previously defined quality levels, aligned to the German standards of the DEGUM. Correlation analyses were carried out using Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The diameters, blood flow, and DPI showed a high degree of agreement (PCC of 0.9 and ICC of 0.9 for AHP). Provided that a precise standard of procedure is adhered to, the Doppler examination of AHC, AHP, and PV yields very reproducible blood flows and DPI, which is a prerequisite for a comprehensive investigation of its prognostic value for the prediction of metachronous hepatic metastasis in the context of curatively treated CRC or PDAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A professional and valid ultrasound examination is dependent upon an extensively experienced examiner. Recognition and classification of rare or minimally distinctive findings are a particular source of uncertainty on the part of the examiner. By creating an online-based video database of sonographic findings, we tried to share our own experience for clinical and educational purposes. Material and methods: More than a thousand video clips of documented ultrasound findings were anonymized and cut to a practicable length of between 10 and 25 sec. The findings were critically evaluated and labeled with a primary diagnosis. They were also classified by organ systems and various keywords. Results: An online portal that currently contains more than 1,000 video sequences of typical, non-typical, especially vivid or rare ultrasound findings has been created. The portal is free of charge and accessible for any Internet-capable PC. It is also optimized for use on mobile devices (smartphones, iPads, etc.). Search and location of relevant findings is performed using keywords or a diagnosis-based search function. The Internet address is www.sono.gallery. Conclusions: The video portal is a fast and universally accessible non-commercial platform. Its moving images can be used as an aid in resolving problematic differential diagnoses of typical, non-typical or especially rare ultrasound findings or in verifying one’s own findings.

Background: the 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. Methods: this 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). Results: both 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. Conclusions: HHUS 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]