OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare tissue harmonic sonography of the liver with conventional sonography of the liver. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients underwent tissue harmonic and conventional sonography of the liver, using a randomized imaging sequence. Imaging parameters were standardized, but gain varied. Techniques were compared using predetermined impact analysis categories. If a finding was revealed by only one sonographic technique, additional confirmation was obtained by another imaging technique or by surgery. In a separate image quality analysis, masked images were reviewed by two experienced radiologists to evaluate fluid-solid differentiation, near-field, far-field, and overall image quality. Rankings were correlated with field of view of images and body habitus of patients as determined by body mass index. RESULTS: Tissue harmonic sonography provided the same information as conventional sonography in 34 patients (71%) and added information in 14 patients (29%). The findings from tissue harmonic sonography resulted in altered treatment in five patients (10%). Eight patients (17%) had lesions revealed by tissue harmonic sonography only. Four patients (8%) had inadequate far-field visualization by both techniques. Both observers ranked tissue harmonic sonography the same as or better than standard sonography in 46 patients (96%) for fluid-solid differentiation, in 46 patients (96%) for near-field image quality, and in 45 patients (94%) for overall image quality. For far-field image quality, one observer ranked tissue harmonic sonography the same as or better than conventional sonography in 40 patients (83%), and the second observer, in 41 patients (85%). Image quality ratings showed no correlation with body habitus of the patients or field of view of images. CONCLUSION: Tissue harmonic sonography of the liver provides more information and better image quality than does conventional sonography of the liver.
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare tissue harmonic sonography of the liver with conventional sonography of the liver. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients underwent tissue harmonic and conventional sonography of the liver, using a randomized imaging sequence. Imaging parameters were standardized, but gain varied. Techniques were compared using predetermined impact analysis categories. If a finding was revealed by only one sonographic technique, additional confirmation was obtained by another imaging technique or by surgery. In a separate image quality analysis, masked images were reviewed by two experienced radiologists to evaluate fluid-solid differentiation, near-field, far-field, and overall image quality. Rankings were correlated with field of view of images and body habitus of patients as determined by body mass index. RESULTS: Tissue harmonic sonography provided the same information as conventional sonography in 34 patients (71%) and added information in 14 patients (29%). The findings from tissue harmonic sonography resulted in altered treatment in five patients (10%). Eight patients (17%) had lesions revealed by tissue harmonic sonography only. Four patients (8%) had inadequate far-field visualization by both techniques. Both observers ranked tissue harmonic sonography the same as or better than standard sonography in 46 patients (96%) for fluid-solid differentiation, in 46 patients (96%) for near-field image quality, and in 45 patients (94%) for overall image quality. For far-field image quality, one observer ranked tissue harmonic sonography the same as or better than conventional sonography in 40 patients (83%), and the second observer, in 41 patients (85%). Image quality ratings showed no correlation with body habitus of the patients or field of view of images. CONCLUSION: Tissue harmonic sonography of the liver provides more information and better image quality than does conventional sonography of the liver.
Authors: T Schmidt; C Hohl; P Haage; D Honnef; A H Mahnken; G Krombach; W Piroth; R W Günther Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-04-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Se Hyung Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Kwang Gi Kim; Jong Hyo Kim; Joon Koo Han; Jae Young Lee; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 7.034