Allison Binkowski1, Christine Riguzzi1, Daniel Price1, Jahan Fahimi2. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Alameda County Medical Center, Highland Hospital, Oakland, California. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Alameda County Medical Center, Highland Hospital, Oakland, California; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is an ideal imaging modality for low-resource settings given its portability, ease of use, and wide range of applications. Commercially available ultrasound gels may be unavailable or cost prohibitive in low-resource settings. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the quality of images obtained with an alternative ultrasound gel made from cornstarch and water in comparison with commercially available gel. METHODS: The cornstarch gel was made by heating water and cornstarch. The gel was used to obtain standard ultrasound images of the gallbladder, kidneys, bladder, heart, and neck vessels by the study investigators. Commercial gel was used as the control. Twenty-four ultrasound clips were shown to four blinded radiologists and two ultrasound-fellowship-trained emergency department physicians. They rated the images on adequacy (yes/no) and graded the images detail, resolution, and quality using a continuous 0-10 scale. RESULTS: A total of 144 video clips were shown to reviewers and 129 data-collection sheets were returned. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of images deemed to be of adequate quality: cornstarch-based gel = 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.00) vs. commercially available gel = 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.94) (p = 0.053). The cornstarch gel was superior to commercial gel on all three image parameters: detail (p = 0.002), resolution (p = 0.018), and quality (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a gel made from cornstarch and water was an acceptable coupling medium and provided equally adequate images as compared with commercial ultrasound gel. This inexpensive gel made from ubiquitous materials can be an acceptable alternative to commercial gel in low-resource settings.
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is an ideal imaging modality for low-resource settings given its portability, ease of use, and wide range of applications. Commercially available ultrasound gels may be unavailable or cost prohibitive in low-resource settings. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the quality of images obtained with an alternative ultrasound gel made from cornstarch and water in comparison with commercially available gel. METHODS: The cornstarch gel was made by heating water and cornstarch. The gel was used to obtain standard ultrasound images of the gallbladder, kidneys, bladder, heart, and neck vessels by the study investigators. Commercial gel was used as the control. Twenty-four ultrasound clips were shown to four blinded radiologists and two ultrasound-fellowship-trained emergency department physicians. They rated the images on adequacy (yes/no) and graded the images detail, resolution, and quality using a continuous 0-10 scale. RESULTS: A total of 144 video clips were shown to reviewers and 129 data-collection sheets were returned. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of images deemed to be of adequate quality: cornstarch-based gel = 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.00) vs. commercially available gel = 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.94) (p = 0.053). The cornstarch gel was superior to commercial gel on all three image parameters: detail (p = 0.002), resolution (p = 0.018), and quality (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a gel made from cornstarch and water was an acceptable coupling medium and provided equally adequate images as compared with commercial ultrasound gel. This inexpensive gel made from ubiquitous materials can be an acceptable alternative to commercial gel in low-resource settings.
Authors: Francesco Di Gennaro; Luigi Pisani; Nicola Veronese; Damiano Pizzol; Valeria Lippolis; Annalisa Saracino; Laura Monno; Michaëla A M Huson; Roberto Copetti; Giovanni Putoto; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Flavio Bobbio; Francesco Di Gennaro; Claudia Marotta; John Kok; Gabriel Akec; Luca Norbis; Laura Monno; Annalisa Saracino; Walter Mazzucco; Marta Lunardi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Margaret Salmon; Christian Salmon; Alexa Bissinger; Mundenga Mutendi Muller; Alegnta Gebreyesus; Haimanot Geremew; Sarah K Wendel; Sarah Wendell; Aklilu Azaza; Maurice Salumu; Nerys Benfield Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sadia Afzal; Muhammad Zahid; Zulfiqar Ahmad Rehan; H M Fayzan Shakir; Hamza Javed; Meshari M H Aljohani; Syed Khalid Mustafa; Maqsood Ahmad; Montaser M Hassan Journal: Gels Date: 2022-01-06