OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reproducibility of measurements of spleen stiffness (SS) and liver stiffness (LS) at several sites by using point shear wave elastography (pSWE) and to investigate any training effect. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were consecutively enrolled. Measurements of SS and LS were performed by an expert (observer 1) and a novice (observer 2) at three different sites of liver and spleen. To assess the effect of training the study was conducted in two periods (period 1 and period 2). Concordance correlation coefficient was used to assess intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility. RESULTS: A total of 92 subjects (67 men and 25 women) were enrolled in the study. Both intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were higher for the liver than for the spleen. Overall, the highest intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were obtained for the assessment of LS through intercostal space, and for measurements at this site there was a significantly better performance of observer 2 after the training period. For both observers, training improved the repeatability of SS measurements at all sites. A good intra-observer agreement was obtained only for measurements at the spleen lower pole. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that a learning curve in pSWE acquisition should be taken into account both for SS and LS measurements. KEY POINTS: Reproducibility of SS measurements depends on the expertise of the operator. To achieve good reproducibility between measurements a training period is required. A learning curve in pSWE acquisition should be taken into account. SS measurements are less reproducible than LS measurements.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reproducibility of measurements of spleen stiffness (SS) and liver stiffness (LS) at several sites by using point shear wave elastography (pSWE) and to investigate any training effect. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were consecutively enrolled. Measurements of SS and LS were performed by an expert (observer 1) and a novice (observer 2) at three different sites of liver and spleen. To assess the effect of training the study was conducted in two periods (period 1 and period 2). Concordance correlation coefficient was used to assess intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility. RESULTS: A total of 92 subjects (67 men and 25 women) were enrolled in the study. Both intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were higher for the liver than for the spleen. Overall, the highest intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were obtained for the assessment of LS through intercostal space, and for measurements at this site there was a significantly better performance of observer 2 after the training period. For both observers, training improved the repeatability of SS measurements at all sites. A good intra-observer agreement was obtained only for measurements at the spleen lower pole. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that a learning curve in pSWE acquisition should be taken into account both for SS and LS measurements. KEY POINTS: Reproducibility of SS measurements depends on the expertise of the operator. To achieve good reproducibility between measurements a training period is required. A learning curve in pSWE acquisition should be taken into account. SS measurements are less reproducible than LS measurements.
Authors: O S Jaffer; P F C Lung; D Bosanac; V M Patel; S M Ryan; M A Heneghan; A Quaglia; P S Sidhu Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Florentina Guzmán-Aroca; Manuel Reus; Juan D Berná-Serna; Laura Serrano; Cristina Serrano; Amparo Gilabert; Angela Cepero Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: F Piscaglia; V Salvatore; R Di Donato; M D'Onofrio; S Gualandi; A Gallotti; E Peri; A Borghi; F Conti; G Fattovich; E Sagrini; A Cucchetti; P Andreone; L Bolondi Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Mark L Palmeri; Michael H Wang; Ned C Rouze; Manal F Abdelmalek; Cynthia D Guy; Barry Moser; Anna Mae Diehl; Kathryn R Nightingale Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: I Grgurevic; I Cikara; J Horvat; I K Lukic; R Heinzl; M Banic; M Kujundzic; B Brkljacic Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Katrin Wunder; Susanne Kriener; Fariba Sotoudeh; Swantje Richter; Joerg Bojunga; Eva Herrmann; Thierry Poynard; Christoph F Dietrich; Johannes Vermehren; Stefan Zeuzem; Christoph Sarrazin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrea B Rosskopf; Elias Bachmann; Jess G Snedeker; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Florian M Buck Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Paul Kennedy; Mathilde Wagner; Laurent Castéra; Cheng William Hong; Curtis L Johnson; Claude B Sirlin; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Arinc Ozturk; Chetan K Potu; Ashley L Louie; Vivian Montes; Walter C Henderson; Kang Wang; Michael P Andre; Anthony E Samir; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.813