Ana Paula Barreiros1, Yi Dong2, Andre Ignee2, Daniel Wastl3, Christoph F Dietrich4. 1. Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation, Region Mitte, Mainz,Germany. 2. Medical Clinic 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Würzburg, Germany. 3. Medizinische Klinik, medizinische Intensivstation, Krankenhaus Nordwest Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 4. Medical Clinic 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Würzburg, Germany. christoph.dietrich@ckbm.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The introduction of a new type of small handheld ultrasound device brings greater portability and affordability in a different setting. The basic ultrasound approach with these handheld devices has been defined by European Federation of Societies of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) as "EchoScopy". The current study aimed to assess the image quality, indications and limitations of a portable pocket "EchoScopy" performed first compared with a high-end ultrasound system (second) in abdominal diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive patients (158 males and 142 females, age 55±19 [18-96]) years) were included. The ultrasound examinations were performed firstly by an EchoScope (Vscan™ Dual Probe) and secondly with a high-end ultrasound system (HEUS, GE Logiq E9). Compared with the always excellent image quality using HEUS, the image quality of the EchoScope was graded as good, sufficient or non-sufficient. RESULTS: Out of all 300 patients, 221 had focal lesions, 31 patients were found with diffuse pathological findings, 20 with ascites, 25 after liver puncture and 45 without any pathological findings. The image quality of the pocket device was considered as being good or sufficient to delineate the pathology in 265/300 (88%). The detection rate of the EchoScope for abdominal focal lesion was 172/221 (78%). The higher frequency of the Dual Probe was helpful in 35/300 (12%). CONCLUSIONS: EchoScopy has proven to display sufficient image quality to answer specific questions, e.g., detection of ascites, splenomegaly, bile duct enlargement, hydronephrosis and other pathological findings which can be judged by "yes/no".
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The introduction of a new type of small handheld ultrasound device brings greater portability and affordability in a different setting. The basic ultrasound approach with these handheld devices has been defined by European Federation of Societies of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) as "EchoScopy". The current study aimed to assess the image quality, indications and limitations of a portable pocket "EchoScopy" performed first compared with a high-end ultrasound system (second) in abdominal diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive patients (158 males and 142 females, age 55±19 [18-96]) years) were included. The ultrasound examinations were performed firstly by an EchoScope (Vscan™ Dual Probe) and secondly with a high-end ultrasound system (HEUS, GE Logiq E9). Compared with the always excellent image quality using HEUS, the image quality of the EchoScope was graded as good, sufficient or non-sufficient. RESULTS: Out of all 300 patients, 221 had focal lesions, 31 patients were found with diffuse pathological findings, 20 with ascites, 25 after liver puncture and 45 without any pathological findings. The image quality of the pocket device was considered as being good or sufficient to delineate the pathology in 265/300 (88%). The detection rate of the EchoScope for abdominal focal lesion was 172/221 (78%). The higher frequency of the Dual Probe was helpful in 35/300 (12%). CONCLUSIONS: EchoScopy has proven to display sufficient image quality to answer specific questions, e.g., detection of ascites, splenomegaly, bile duct enlargement, hydronephrosis and other pathological findings which can be judged by "yes/no".
Authors: Christopher Uschnig; Florian Recker; Michael Blaivas; Yi Dong; Christoph F Dietrich Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.694