No abstract

Routine quality control of ultrasound scanners and transducers is important for maintaining image quality. Our experience suggests that artefact and uniformity evaluation is the most effective single phantom test for detecting equipment problems. Current methods for assessing ultrasound images for artefacts have important limitations. To overcome these limitations, we have developed a novel, low-cost, liquid phantom with a flexible surface for assessing artefacts. A range of materials were evaluated and the optimal liquid phantom was found to be a water/cornstarch solution contained within a flexible latex balloon. When compared to a rigid tissue-mimicking phantom no deficiencies in overall image appearance or artefact detection for any transducer model was observed for the liquid phantom. With minimal training, reproducible clips were obtained by clinical sonographers with low inter- and intra-operator dependence, for a range of transducers models. The flexible scanning surface of the liquid phantom allows complete rapid coupling of all transducers. Due to its ease of use and low cost this liquid phantom appears superior to rigid phantoms for assessment of non-uniformity artefacts, and should allow clinical practices to perform routine artefact assessments of all ultrasound scanners and transducers.

Purpose It is unclear if a 3D transducer with the special design of mechanical swing or 2D array could provide acceptable 2D grayscale image quality for the general diagnosis purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the 2D image quality of a 3D intracavitary transducer with a conventional 2D intracavitary transducer using clinically relevant phantom experiments. Methods All measurements were performed on a GE Logiq E9 scanner with both a 2D (IC5‐9‐D) and a 3D (RIC5‐9‐D) transducer used in 2D mode. Selection of phantom targets and acquisition parameters were determined from analysis of 33 clinical pelvic exams. Depth of penetration (DOP), contrast response, contrast of anechoic cylinders (diameter: 6.7 mm) at 1.5 and 4.5 cm depths in transverse planes, and in‐plane resolution represented by full‐width half‐maximum of pin targets at multiple depths were measured with transmit frequencies of 7 and 8 MHz. Spherical signal‐noise‐ratio (SNR) (diameter: 4 and 2 mm) at multiple depths were measured at 8 MHz. Results RIC5‐9‐D demonstrated <8% decrease in DOP for both transmit frequencies (7 MHz: 69.7 ± 8.2 mm; 8 MHz: 64.3 ± 7.8 mm) compared with those from IC5‐9‐D (7 MHz: 73.9 ± 4.4 mm; 8 MHz: 69.4 ± 7.8 mm). A decreased anechoic contrast was observed with a 4.5 cm depth for RIC5‐9‐D (7 MHz: 23.2 ± 1.8 dB, P > 0.05; 8 MHz: 17.7 ± 0.9 dB, P < 0.01) compared with IC5‐9‐D (7 MHz: 25.9 ± 1.2 dB; 8 MHz: 21.5 ± 0.8 dB). The contrast response and spatial resolution performance were comparable between the two transducers. RIC5‐9‐D showed comparable SNR of anechoic spheres compared to IC5‐9‐D. Conclusions 2D images from a 3D probe exhibited comparable overall image quality for routine clinical pelvic imaging.

Our ultrasound practice is becoming even more focused on managing practice resources and improving our efficiency while maintaining practice quality. We often encounter questions related to issues such as equipment utilization and management, study type statistics, and productivity. We are developing an analytics system to allow more evidence-based management of our ultrasound practice. Our system collects information from tens of thousands of DICOM images produced during exams, including structured reporting, public and private DICOM headers, and text within the images via optical character recognition (OCR). Inventory/location information augments the data aggregation, and statistical analysis and metrics are computed such as median exam length (time from the first image to last), transducer models used in an exam, and exams performed in a particular room, practice location, or by a given sonographer. Additional reports detail the length of a scan room's operational day, the number and type of exams performed, the time between exams, and summary data such as exams per operational hour and time-based room utilization. Our findings have already helped guide practice decisions: two defective probes were not replaced (a savings of over $10,000) when utilization data showed that three or more of the shared probe model were always idle; neck exams are the most time-consuming individually, but abdomen exam volumes cause them to consume the most total scan time, making abdominal exams the better candidates for efficiency optimization efforts. A small subset of sonographers exhibit the greatest scanning and between-scan efficiency, making them good candidates for identifying best practices.