Literature DB >> 10942831

Nonlinear stress-strain relationships in tissue and their effect on the contrast-to-noise ratio in elastograms.

T Varghese1, J Ophir, T A Krouskop.   

Abstract

The practice of elastography is generally limited to small applied compressions (typically 1%), under the assumption of a linear stress-strain relationship in biological tissue. However, the recent reports of larger applied compressions and precompression levels to increase the strain contrast violate the above assumption. The nonlinear stress-strain relationships in different breast tissue types significantly alter the contrast in elastography, especially for large applied compression. The moduli of normal fibrous and glandular breast tissue (along with cancerous lesions) are strain-dependent, with tissue stiffness increasing with applied compression. In this paper, we illustrate that the strain-dependence of the modulus has a significant impact on the elastographic contrast and on the contrast-to-noise ratio, and may even cause a reversal of the contrast in certain situations. This paper also emphasizes the effect of the precompression strain level on the strain contrast.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10942831     DOI: 10.1016/s0301-5629(00)00199-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  13 in total

1.  Linear and nonlinear elastic modulus imaging: an application to breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Sevan Goenezen; Jean-Francois Dord; Zac Sink; Paul E Barbone; Jingfeng Jiang; Timothy J Hall; Assad A Oberai
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  A nonlinear elasticity phantom containing spherical inclusions.

Authors:  Theo Z Pavan; Ernest L Madsen; Gary R Frank; Jingfeng Jiang; Antonio A O Carneiro; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Improvements in elastographic contrast-to-noise ratio using spatial-angular compounding.

Authors:  Udomchai Techavipoo; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.998

4.  Effects of compression force on elasticity index and elasticity ratio in ultrasound elastography.

Authors:  A Imaizumi; Y Sasaki; J Sakamoto; T Kamio; K Nishikawa; M Otonari-Yamamoto; M Wako
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Christelle Melodelima; Au Hoang Dinh; Flavie Bratan; Gaele Pagnoux; Thomas Sanzalone; Sébastien Crouzet; Marc Colombel; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Rémi Souchon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  The impact of hepatic pressurization on liver shear wave speed estimates in constrained versus unconstrained conditions.

Authors:  V Rotemberg; M Palmeri; R Nightingale; N Rouze; K Nightingale
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  A Non-invasive Method to Estimate the Stress-Strain Curve of Soft Tissue Using Ultrasound Elastography.

Authors:  Yuqi Wang; Daniel S Jacobson; Matthew W Urban
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2022-02-13       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Variance and covariance of accumulated displacement estimates.

Authors:  Matthew Bayer; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.578

9.  Large-Strain 3-D in Vivo Breast Ultrasound Strain Elastography Using a Multi-compression Strategy and a Whole-Breast Scanning System.

Authors:  Yuqi Wang; Matthew Bayer; Jingfeng Jiang; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-09-21       Impact factor: 2.998

10.  Dynamic functional and mechanical response of breast tissue to compression.

Authors:  S A Carp; J Selb; Q Fang; R Moore; D B Kopans; E Rafferty; D A Boas
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2008-09-29       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.