OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of performing three-dimensional ultrasonographic studies that meet American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and American College of Radiology ultrasonographic examination guidelines with review off-line and at remote locations. METHODS: One hundred patients were studied at 2 institutions using high-end two-dimensional clinical ultrasonographic scanners and commercially available three-dimensional ultrasonography for a variety of organ systems (first- and second-trimester fetus, abdomen, and female pelvis). We evaluated several parameters, including measurements, completeness of organ visualization, abnormalities identified, image quality, number of volumes required, and discrepancies between interpretations. RESULTS: Overall, three-dimensional ultrasonography could produce diagnostic-quality results comparable with those of two-dimensional ultrasonography. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic image quality was lower than that of two-dimensional ultrasonography. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurements were comparable (<5% difference), as was the extent of organ visualization, although some structures were challenging for both two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography. In general, organs completely imaged in the scanner field of view required 1 to 1.5 volumes, whereas larger organs required between 3 and 6 volumes. Differences among reviewers' interpretations highlighted the need for standardization of acquisition and reviewing protocols for sonographers and physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that it is clinically feasible to acquire three-dimensional ultrasonographic data at one site and to obtain accurate interpretation by off-line review at another within the context of providing high-quality clinical diagnostic studies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of performing three-dimensional ultrasonographic studies that meet American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and American College of Radiology ultrasonographic examination guidelines with review off-line and at remote locations. METHODS: One hundred patients were studied at 2 institutions using high-end two-dimensional clinical ultrasonographic scanners and commercially available three-dimensional ultrasonography for a variety of organ systems (first- and second-trimester fetus, abdomen, and female pelvis). We evaluated several parameters, including measurements, completeness of organ visualization, abnormalities identified, image quality, number of volumes required, and discrepancies between interpretations. RESULTS: Overall, three-dimensional ultrasonography could produce diagnostic-quality results comparable with those of two-dimensional ultrasonography. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic image quality was lower than that of two-dimensional ultrasonography. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurements were comparable (<5% difference), as was the extent of organ visualization, although some structures were challenging for both two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography. In general, organs completely imaged in the scanner field of view required 1 to 1.5 volumes, whereas larger organs required between 3 and 6 volumes. Differences among reviewers' interpretations highlighted the need for standardization of acquisition and reviewing protocols for sonographers and physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that it is clinically feasible to acquire three-dimensional ultrasonographic data at one site and to obtain accurate interpretation by off-line review at another within the context of providing high-quality clinical diagnostic studies.