Shear wave elastography with a new reliability indicator.
Non-invasive methods for liver stiffness assessment have been introduced over recent years. Of these, two main methods for estimating liver fibrosis using ultrasound elastography have become established in clinical practice: shear wave elastography and quasi-static or strain elastography. Shear waves are waves with a motion perpendicular (lateral) to the direction of the generating force. Shear waves travel relatively slowly (between 1 and 10 m/s). The stiffness of the liver tissue can be assessed based on shear wave velocity (the stiffness increases with the speed). The European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology has published Guidelines and Recommendations that describe these technologies and provide recommendations for their clinical use. Most of the data available to date has been published using the Fibroscan (Echosens, France), point shear wave speed measurement using an acoustic radiation force impulse (Siemens, Germany) and 2D shear wave elastography using the Aixplorer (SuperSonic Imagine, France). More recently, also other manufacturers have introduced shear wave elastography technology into the market. A comparison of data obtained using different techniques for shear wave propagation and velocity measurement is of key interest for future studies, recommendations and guidelines. Here, we present a recently introduced shear wave elastography technology from Hitachi and discuss its reproducibility and comparability to the already established technologies.
Medizinische Klinik 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Christoph F
CF
Dietrich
Department of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 200032 Shanghai, China.
Yi
Y
Dong
guideline; healthy; liver; liver stiffness measurement; recommendation
Ultraschall Med. 2016 Jun;37(3):262-70
27070127
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 May;41(5):1161-79
25800942
Gastroenterology. 2005 Feb;128(2):343-50
15685546
Endoscopy. 2009 Aug;41(8):718-20
19618344
Ultraschall Med. 2016 Feb;37(1):1-5
26871407
Radiology. 2009 Aug;252(2):595-604
19703889
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Mar;83(3):405-14
23643030
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug 14;19(30):4850-60
23946589
Z Gastroenterol. 2012 Dec;50(12 ):1281-6
23225555
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):554-62
26305193
Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015 Mar;71(2):865-73
25417057
Hepat Med. 2013 Jul 04;5:43-52
24696623
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45(1):30-8
20001748
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Mar;81(3):e325-31
22119555
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 May;41(5):1148-60
25795620
J Hepatol. 2014 Apr;60(4):706-14
24291240
Ultrasonics. 2012 Jan;52(1):69-74
21788057
Laryngorhinootologie. 2016 Feb;95(2):87-104
26859730
Oncology. 2015 ;89 Suppl 2:53-9
26580548
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016 Jan;42(1):16-30
26489365
Gastroenterology. 2016 Jan;150(1):123-33
26435270
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2013 May;138(19):1001-18
23633280
Endoscopy. 2007 Nov;39(11):952-7
18008203
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct 14;19(38):6329-47
24151351
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42735
22952609
Endoscopy. 2008 Nov;40(11):910-7
19009483
Z Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar;53(3):208-25
25775171
Ultraschall Med. 2013 Jun;34(3):238-53
23605169
Ultraschall Med. 2012 Oct;33(5):411-4
23079737
J Hepatol. 2014 Nov;61(5):994-1003
25016224
Ultraschall Med. 2013 Apr;34(2):169-84
23558397
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Dec 21;21(47):13212-24
26715804
J Viral Hepat. 2012 Feb;19(2):e212-9
22239521
Z Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul;52(7):649-53
25026006
Endosc Ultrasound. 2015 Jul-Sep;4(3):176-90
26374575
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 May;41(5):1126-47
25805059
Z Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;52(2):212-21
24526406