K Seitz1, D Vasilakis, M Ziegler. 1. Innere Abteilung, Kreiskrankenhaus Sigmaringen, Academisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Universität Tübingen, Sigmaringen.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the comparative performance of a portable sonography device in abdominal ultrasound. METHOD: In the daily routine of abdominal ultrasound scanning, the portable device SonoSite was tested against the high-end machine ATL 5000 HDI by two examiners with more than 5 years of ultrasound experience. The examination was restricted to the B-scan with a hands-on scanning time of 10 minutes. Patients with unknown diagnoses were first examined with the SonoSite, and the findings and diagnoses documented. Consecutively, the examination was repeated using the ATL HDI 5000. Differing findings and diagnoses were documented in a written form. RESULTS: There were 62 identical results in 60 patients. The high-end device yielded 23 additional findings. Examination with the portable device did not allow a definite diagnosis in 4 more cases. This difference is statistically significant with a confidence interval of 95 %. CONCLUSION: Portable ultrasound devices are surprisingly effective in the hands of experienced examiners. Imaging quality is predictably inferior to so-called high-end devices. Nearly all acute and therapeutically relevant diagnoses and findings were registered, even though nearly a quarter of the findings diagnosed with the high-end device were overlooked. These findings were mostly clinically irrelevant or very small in size. As could be expected, problems arose with pathological findings requiring high resolution, i.e., liver metastases, tiny gallstones, appendicitis, Crohn's disease etc. These form a clear indication for a high-end ultrasound examination.
AIM: To determine the comparative performance of a portable sonography device in abdominal ultrasound. METHOD: In the daily routine of abdominal ultrasound scanning, the portable device SonoSite was tested against the high-end machine ATL 5000 HDI by two examiners with more than 5 years of ultrasound experience. The examination was restricted to the B-scan with a hands-on scanning time of 10 minutes. Patients with unknown diagnoses were first examined with the SonoSite, and the findings and diagnoses documented. Consecutively, the examination was repeated using the ATL HDI 5000. Differing findings and diagnoses were documented in a written form. RESULTS: There were 62 identical results in 60 patients. The high-end device yielded 23 additional findings. Examination with the portable device did not allow a definite diagnosis in 4 more cases. This difference is statistically significant with a confidence interval of 95 %. CONCLUSION: Portable ultrasound devices are surprisingly effective in the hands of experienced examiners. Imaging quality is predictably inferior to so-called high-end devices. Nearly all acute and therapeutically relevant diagnoses and findings were registered, even though nearly a quarter of the findings diagnosed with the high-end device were overlooked. These findings were mostly clinically irrelevant or very small in size. As could be expected, problems arose with pathological findings requiring high resolution, i.e., liver metastases, tiny gallstones, appendicitis, Crohn's disease etc. These form a clear indication for a high-end ultrasound examination.
Authors: Doris Schacherer; Frank Klebl; Daniela Goetz; Roland Buettner; Stephanie Zierhut; Juergen Schoelmerich; Julia Langgartner Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-03-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: T F Greten; N P Malek; S Schmidt; J Arends; P Bartenstein; W Bechstein; T Bernatik; M Bitzer; A Chavan; M Dollinger; D Domagk; O Drognitz; M Düx; S Farkas; G Folprecht; P Galle; M Geißler; G Gerken; D Habermehl; T Helmberger; K Herfarth; R T Hoffmann; M Holtmann; P Huppert; T Jakobs; M Keller; J Klempnauer; F Kolligs; J Körber; H Lang; F Lehner; F Lordick; A Lubienski; M P Manns; A Mahnken; M Möhler; C Mönch; P Neuhaus; C Niederau; M Ocker; G Otto; P Pereira; G Pott; J Riemer; K Ringe; U Ritterbusch; E Rummeny; P Schirmacher; H J Schlitt; K Schlottmann; V Schmitz; A Schuler; H Schulze-Bergkamen; D von Schweinitz; D Seehofer; H Sitter; C P Straßburg; C Stroszczynski; D Strobel; A Tannapfel; J Trojan; I van Thiel; A Vogel; F Wacker; H Wedemeyer; H Wege; A Weinmann; C Wittekind; B Wörmann; C J Zech Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 2.000