PURPOSE: To objectively compare the echogenicity of several types of needles at clinically important angles of insonation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four commercial needles (Echotip, Mini-Stick, Echo-Coat, Surflo) and a prototype dimpled needle were tested in a liver phantom at angles of insonation ranging from 90 degrees to 15 degrees. Photodensity measurement determined echogenicity levels in arbitrary echogenicity units (EU). RESULTS: At 90 degrees angles of insonation all needles were easily seen (60-76 EU) and echogenic levels were similar (P =.264). All values decreased with angulation. From the 35 degrees to 15 degrees angles, the prototype and Echotip needles were superior (P <.05). At 15 degrees the values were 43 EU for the prototype needle, 40 EU for the Echotip needle, 9.0 EU for the Echo-Coat needle, and 5.0 EU for the Surflo needle. CONCLUSION: With angulation, all needles drop in echogenicity, with prototype dimpled and Echotip best maintaining visibility at clinically important angles.
PURPOSE: To objectively compare the echogenicity of several types of needles at clinically important angles of insonation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four commercial needles (Echotip, Mini-Stick, Echo-Coat, Surflo) and a prototype dimpled needle were tested in a liver phantom at angles of insonation ranging from 90 degrees to 15 degrees. Photodensity measurement determined echogenicity levels in arbitrary echogenicity units (EU). RESULTS: At 90 degrees angles of insonation all needles were easily seen (60-76 EU) and echogenic levels were similar (P =.264). All values decreased with angulation. From the 35 degrees to 15 degrees angles, the prototype and Echotip needles were superior (P <.05). At 15 degrees the values were 43 EU for the prototype needle, 40 EU for the Echotip needle, 9.0 EU for the Echo-Coat needle, and 5.0 EU for the Surflo needle. CONCLUSION: With angulation, all needles drop in echogenicity, with prototype dimpled and Echotip best maintaining visibility at clinically important angles.
Authors: Marius George Linguraru; Nikolay V Vasilyev; Pedro J Del Nido; Robert D Howe Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Shou-Jiang Tang; Andreas S Vilmann; Adrian Saftoiu; Wanmei Wang; Costin Teodor Streba; Peter P Fink; Michael Griswold; Ruonan Wu; Christoph F Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Michael Hocke; Marcus Kantowski; Jürgen Pohl; Paul Fockens; Jouke T Annema; Erik H F M van der Heijden; Roald Flesland Havre; Khanh Do-Cong Pham; Rastislav Kunda; Pierre H Deprez; Jinga Mariana; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Alberto Larghi; Elisabetta Buscarini; Pietro Fusaroli; Maor Lahav; Rajesh Puri; Pramod Kumar Garg; Malay Sharma; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Anand Sahai; William R Brugge; Linda S Lee; Harry R Aslanian; Andrew Y Wang; Vanessa M Shami; Arnold Markowitz; Ali A Siddiqui; Girish Mishra; James M Scheiman; Gerard Isenberg; Uzma D Siddiqui; Raj J Shah; James Buxbaum; Rabindra R Watson; Field F Willingham; Manoop S Bhutani; Michael J Levy; Cynthia Harris; Michael B Wallace; Christian Pállson Nolsøe; Torben Lorentzen; Niels Bang; Sten Mellerup Sørensen; Odd Helge Gilja; Mirko D'Onofrio; Fabio Piscaglia; Norbert Gritzmann; Maija Radzina; Zeno Adrian Sparchez; Paul S Sidhu; Simon Freeman; Timothy C McCowan; Cyrillo Rodrigues de Araujo; Akash Patel; Mohammad Adel Ali; Garth Campbell; Edward Chen; Peter Vilmann Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 9.427