A comparison of the imaging performance of high resolution ultrasound scanners for preclinical imaging.
Nine ultrasound transducers from six ultrasound scanners were assessed for their utility for preclinical ultrasound imaging. The transducers were: L8-16, L10-22 (Diasus; Dynamic Imaging Ltd., Livingston, UK); L17-5, L15-7io (iU22; Philips, Seattle, WA, USA), HFL38/13-6 (MicroMaxx; Sonosite Inc., Bothell, WA, USA); il3Lv (Vivid 5; GE, Fairfield, CT, USA), RMV 704 (Vevo 770; Visualsonics Inc., Toronto, Canada) and MS550S, MS550D (Vevo 2100; Visualsonics Inc.). A quantitative analysis of the ultrasound images from all nine transducers employed measurements of the resolution integral as an indication of the versatility and technology of the ultrasound scanners. Two other parameters derived from the resolution integral, the characteristic resolution and depth of field, were used to characterise imaging performance. Six of these transducers were also assessed qualitatively by ultrasonically scanning 59 female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) yielding a total of 215 scans. The quantitative measurements for each of the transducers were consistent with the results obtained in the qualitative in vivo assessment. Over a 0-10 mm imaging depth, the values of the resolution integral, characteristic resolution and depth of field, measured using the Edinburgh Pipe Phantom, ranged in magnitude from 7-72, 93-930 μm and 3.3-9.2 mm respectively. The largest resolution integrals were obtained using the Vevo 770 and Vevo 2100 scanners. The Edinburgh Pipe Phantom provides a quantitative method of characterising the imaging performance of preclinical imaging scanners.
Medical Physics, Centre for Cardiovascular Sciences, The Queens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Carmel.Moran@ed.ac.uk
Carmel M
CM
Moran
Stephen D
SD
Pye
William
W
Ellis
Anna
A
Janeczko
Keith D
KD
Morris
Alan S
AS
McNeilly
Hamish M
HM
Fraser
D000818:Animals; D002144:Callithrix; D004867:Equipment Design; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D005260:Female; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000662:veterinary*
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Aug;33(8):1259-68
17467156
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Sep;33(9):1368-75
17561330
Pediatr Res. 2006 Jul;60(1):14-21
16690959
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005 Sep;289(3):H1307-14
15908468
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2005 May 25;3:13
15916702
Nat Med. 2006 Apr;12(4):452-8
16582915
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001 Feb;27(2):245-50
11316533
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2009;21(3):377-92
19261215
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007 Feb;20(2):136-43
17275698
Cancer Res. 2005 Jul 15;65(14):6337-45
16024636
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Sep;28(9):1165-72
12401387
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Sep 15;12(18):5277-87
17000660
Am J Primatol. 1996;39(2):99-113
31918495
Placenta. 2005 Feb-Mar;26(2-3):129-37
15708114
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006 Sep;291(3):H1421-8
16603699
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Sep 7;55(17):5067-88
20702928
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004 Oct;30(10):1307-19
15582230
Endocrinology. 2002 Jul;143(7):2797-807
12072415