Pocket-size ultrasound device in cholelithiasis: diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of short-term training

Technical assessment of resolution of handheld ultrasound devices and clinical implications

PURPOSE

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.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices-A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care

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.

The Performance Characteristics of Handheld, Non-Piezoelectric Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Emergency Department

The use of handheld point-of-care ultrasound (HH-POCUS) platforms is rapidly increasing, but the diagnostic performance of HH-POCUS in the emergency department (ED) has not been well-studied. For a period of one year, only a HH-POCUS system that uses a non-piezoelectric array (Butterfly iQ+™) was available for clinical POCUS examinations in our ED. We performed a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent cardiac, thoracic, renal, biliary, or lower extremity venous (DVT) examinations from November 2021-November 2022 and calculated performance characteristics of HH-POCUS relative to radiology imaging. A total of 381 HH-POCUS studies were evaluated. Cardiac image quality was significantly lower than lung (p = 0.002). Over half of the studies (213/381) had imaging available for comparison, and HH-POCUS identified 86.5% (32/37, (95%CI) 70.4-94.9) of prespecified emergent diagnoses, including acute cholecystitis, severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pericardial effusion or tamponade, moderate or larger pleural effusion, pneumothorax, moderate or larger hydronephrosis, and DVT. For less emergent diagnoses, 84.3% (43/51, (95%CI) 70.9-92.5) were identified. Overall, HH-POCUS using a non-piezoelectric array showed modest real-world performance in the ED for cardiac, thoracic, renal, biliary, and DVT examinations. HH-POCUS may be inadequate to rule out some common ED diagnoses, but had good specificity for certain conditions such as pericardial effusion.

Prospective Comparison of Handheld Ultrasound Devices from Different Manufacturers with Respect to B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance for Various Abdominal Sonography Questions

BACKGROUND

Handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices have chiefly been deployed in emergency medicine, where they are considered a valid tool. The data situation is less clear in the case of internal questions in abdominal sonography. In our study, we investigate whether HHUS devices from different manufacturers differ in their B-scan quality, and whether any differences are relevant for the significance of an internal ultrasound examination.

METHOD

The study incorporated eight HHUS devices from different manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of seven defined sonographic questions were recorded with all of the devices. The analogue recording of the same findings with a conventional high-end ultrasound (HEUS) device served as an evaluation criterion. Then, the corresponding findings were played side by side and evaluated by fourteen ultrasound experts using a point scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient).

RESULTS

The HHUS devices achieved relatively good results in terms of both the B-scan quality assessment and the ability to answer the clinical question, regardless of the manufacturer. One of the tested HHUS devices even achieved a significantly (p < 0.05) higher average points score in both the evaluation of B-scan quality and in the evaluation of clinical significance than the other devices. Regardless of the manufacturer, the HHUS devices performed best when determining the status/inferior vena cava volume and in the representation of ascites/free fluid.

CONCLUSION

In various clinical abdominal sonography questions, HHUS systems can reliably reproduce findings, and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS systems. Irrespective of this, the present study demonstrated relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Point-of-care ultrasound with pocket-size devices in emergency department

Point-of-care ultrasound is a useful tool for clinicians in the management of patients. Particularly in emergency department, the role of point-of-care ultrasound is strongly increasing due to the need for a rapid assessment of critically ill patients and to speed up the diagnostic process. Hand-carried ultrasound devices are particularly useful in emergency setting and allow rapid assessment of patient even in prehospital setting. This article will review the role of point-of-care ultrasonography, performed with pocket-size devices, in the management of patients presenting with acute onset of undifferentiating dyspnea, chest pain, and shock in emergency department.

Hand-Held Ultrasound Devices Compared with High-End Ultrasound Systems: A Systematic Review

The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature available on the comparison of hand-held ultrasound devices with high-end systems for abdominal and pleural applications. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Original research describing hand-held ultrasound devices compared with high-end systems was included and assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2. The search was limited to articles published since 1 January 2012. A total of 2486 articles were found and screened by title and abstract. A total of 16 articles were chosen for final review. All of the included articles showed good overall agreement between hand-held and high-end ultrasound systems. Strong correlations were found when evaluating ascites, hydronephrosis, pleural cavities, in detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms and for use with obstetric and gynaecological patients. Other articles found good agreement for cholelithiasis and for determining the best site for paracentesis. QUADAS-2 analysis suggested few risks of bias and almost no concerns regarding applicability. For distinct clinical questions, hand-held devices may be a valuable supplement to physical examination. However, evidence is inadequate, and more research is needed on the abdominal and pleural use of hand-held ultrasound with more standardised comparisons, using only blinded reviewers.