Outi Sipilä1, Vilma Mannila, Eija Vartiainen. 1. HUS Helsinki Medical Imaging Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital, and Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 340, 00029 HUS, Finland. outi.sipila@hus.fi
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To setup a practical ultrasound quality assurance protocol in a large radiological center, results from transducer tests, phantom measurements and visual checks for physical faults were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether 151 transducers from 54 ultrasound scanners, from seven different manufacturers, were tested with a Sonora FirstCall aPerio™ system (Sonora Medical Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO, USA) to detect non-functional elements. Phantom measurements using a CIRS General Purpose Phantom Model 040 (CIRS Tissue Simulation and Phantom Technology, VA, USA) were available for 135 transducers. The transducers and scanners were also checked visually for physical faults. The percentages of defective findings in these tests were computed. RESULTS: Defective results in the FirstCall tests were found in 17% of the 151 transducers, and in 16% of the 135 transducers. Defective image quality resulted with 15% of the transducers, and 25% of the transducers had a physical flaw. In 16% of the scanners, a physical fault elsewhere than in the transducer was found. Seven percent of the transducers had a concurrent defective result both in the FirstCall test and in the phantom measurements, 8% in the FirstCall test and in the visual check, 4% in the phantom measurements and in the visual check, and 2% in all three tests. CONCLUSION: The tested methods produced partly complementary results and seemed all to be necessary. Thus a quality assurance protocol is forced to be rather labored, and therefore the benefits and costs must be closely followed.
OBJECTIVE: To setup a practical ultrasound quality assurance protocol in a large radiological center, results from transducer tests, phantom measurements and visual checks for physical faults were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether 151 transducers from 54 ultrasound scanners, from seven different manufacturers, were tested with a Sonora FirstCall aPerio™ system (Sonora Medical Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO, USA) to detect non-functional elements. Phantom measurements using a CIRS General Purpose Phantom Model 040 (CIRS Tissue Simulation and Phantom Technology, VA, USA) were available for 135 transducers. The transducers and scanners were also checked visually for physical faults. The percentages of defective findings in these tests were computed. RESULTS: Defective results in the FirstCall tests were found in 17% of the 151 transducers, and in 16% of the 135 transducers. Defective image quality resulted with 15% of the transducers, and 25% of the transducers had a physical flaw. In 16% of the scanners, a physical fault elsewhere than in the transducer was found. Seven percent of the transducers had a concurrent defective result both in the FirstCall test and in the phantom measurements, 8% in the FirstCall test and in the visual check, 4% in the phantom measurements and in the visual check, and 2% in all three tests. CONCLUSION: The tested methods produced partly complementary results and seemed all to be necessary. Thus a quality assurance protocol is forced to be rather labored, and therefore the benefits and costs must be closely followed.
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
Authors: Song Lee; Joon-Il Choi; Michael Yong Park; Dong Myung Yeo; Jae Young Byun; Seung Eun Jung; Sung Eun Rha; Soon Nam Oh; Young Joon Lee Journal: Ultrasonography Date: 2014-02-26
Authors: Pepijn van Horssen; Arnold Schilham; Dennis Dickerscheid; Niels van der Werf; Han Keijzers; Ronald van Almere; Joost Kuijer; Rob Peters; Mark Hofman Journal: Ultrasound Date: 2017-09-29