Maricy R Martins1, Wellington P Martins2, Carlos A M Soares2, Andre H Miyague3,4, Marek J Kudla5, Theo Z Pavan1. 1. Department of Physics, School of Philosophy, Sciences, and Letters of Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Evangelico de Curitiba, Curitiba, Brazil. 4. Woman and Fetal Medicine Institute, Curitiba, Brazil. 5. Clinical Department of Oncological Gynecology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although power Doppler imaging has been used to quantify tissue and organ vascularity, many studies showed that limitations in defining adequate ultrasound machine settings and attenuation make such measurements complex to be achieved. However, most of these studies were conducted by using the output of proprietary software, such as Virtual Organ computer-aided analysis (GE Healthcare, Kretz, Zipf, Austria); therefore, many conclusions may not be generalizable because of unknown settings and parameters used by the software. To overcome this limitation, our goal was to evaluate the impact of the flow velocity, pulse repetition frequency (PRF), and wall motion filter (WMF) on power Doppler image quantification using beam-formed ultrasonic radiofrequency data. METHODS: The setup consisted of a blood-mimicking fluid flowing through a phantom. Radiofrequency signals were collected using PRFs ranging from 0.6 to 10 kHz for 6 different flow velocities (5-40 cm/s). Wall motion filter cutoff frequencies were varied between 50 and 250 Hz. RESULTS: The power Doppler magnitude was deeply influenced by the WMF cutoff frequency. The effect of using different WMF values varied with the PRF; therefore, the power Doppler signal intensity was dependent on the PRF. Finally, we verified that power Doppler quantification can be affected by the aliasing effect, especially when using a PRF lower than 1.3 kHz. CONCLUSIONS: The WMF and PRF greatly influenced power Doppler quantification, mainly when flow velocities lower than 20 cm/s were used. Although the experiments were conducted in a nonclinical environment, the evaluated parameters are equivalent to those used in clinical practice, which makes them valuable for aiding the interpretation of related data in future research.
OBJECTIVES: Although power Doppler imaging has been used to quantify tissue and organ vascularity, many studies showed that limitations in defining adequate ultrasound machine settings and attenuation make such measurements complex to be achieved. However, most of these studies were conducted by using the output of proprietary software, such as Virtual Organ computer-aided analysis (GE Healthcare, Kretz, Zipf, Austria); therefore, many conclusions may not be generalizable because of unknown settings and parameters used by the software. To overcome this limitation, our goal was to evaluate the impact of the flow velocity, pulse repetition frequency (PRF), and wall motion filter (WMF) on power Doppler image quantification using beam-formed ultrasonic radiofrequency data. METHODS: The setup consisted of a blood-mimicking fluid flowing through a phantom. Radiofrequency signals were collected using PRFs ranging from 0.6 to 10 kHz for 6 different flow velocities (5-40 cm/s). Wall motion filter cutoff frequencies were varied between 50 and 250 Hz. RESULTS: The power Doppler magnitude was deeply influenced by the WMF cutoff frequency. The effect of using different WMF values varied with the PRF; therefore, the power Doppler signal intensity was dependent on the PRF. Finally, we verified that power Doppler quantification can be affected by the aliasing effect, especially when using a PRF lower than 1.3 kHz. CONCLUSIONS: The WMF and PRF greatly influenced power Doppler quantification, mainly when flow velocities lower than 20 cm/s were used. Although the experiments were conducted in a nonclinical environment, the evaluated parameters are equivalent to those used in clinical practice, which makes them valuable for aiding the interpretation of related data in future research.
Authors: Boyu Gu; Xiaolin Wang; Michael D Twa; Johnny Tam; Christopher A Girkin; Yuhua Zhang Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: M Frijlingh; L Juffermans; R de Leeuw; C de Bruyn; D Timmerman; T van den Bosch; J A F Huirne Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 8.678