Xiuming Wang1,2, Jiaan Zhu1, Junxue Gao1, Yue Hu1, Yiqun Liu1, Wenxue Li1, Si Chen1, Feifei Liu1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Ultrasound, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Abstract
Background: The application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in assessment of the musculoskeletal system is affected by various factors. This study aimed to explore the influence of machines, probes, region of interest (ROI) sizes, and the acquisition angles on muscle shear wave speed (SWS). Methods: The SWS of ex vivo isolated muscles were acquired using 3 different machines (Aixplorer system, SuperSonic Imagine; Acuson S3000, Siemens Healthcare; Resona 7, Mindray) and 2 linear probes (Aixplorer system, SL 10-2 and SL 15-4). Also, 4 different ROI sizes (diameter 1-10 mm) and 9 different acquisition angles (0-40°) were tested. The SWS acquired under different conditions were compared, and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to evaluate reproducibility. Results: There was a significant difference in SWS acquired using the 3 different machines (P<0.001) or with 9 different angles (P=0.008). There was no significant difference in SWS acquired using 2 probes (P=0.053) or 4 different ROI sizes (P=0.874, 0.778, and 0.865 for 3 operators, respectively). All machines produced substantial intra-system reproducibility (ICC, 0.61-0.80). Both probes demonstrated an almost perfect degree of intra-system agreement (ICC, >0.80), and nearly all ROI sizes demonstrated an almost perfect degree of intra- and inter-operator agreement (ICC, >0.80). The measurement reliability was higher when the acquisition angles were no more than 20°. Conclusions: The 3 machines had different SWS values. Attention should be paid when comparing SWS results using different machines. For the Aixplorer system, the ROI size had no effect on the SWS values. Angles larger than 25° will lead to SWS measurements with greater variability compared to smaller angles (≤20°). 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: The application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in assessment of the musculoskeletal system is affected by various factors. This study aimed to explore the influence of machines, probes, region of interest (ROI) sizes, and the acquisition angles on muscle shear wave speed (SWS). Methods: The SWS of ex vivo isolated muscles were acquired using 3 different machines (Aixplorer system, SuperSonic Imagine; Acuson S3000, Siemens Healthcare; Resona 7, Mindray) and 2 linear probes (Aixplorer system, SL 10-2 and SL 15-4). Also, 4 different ROI sizes (diameter 1-10 mm) and 9 different acquisition angles (0-40°) were tested. The SWS acquired under different conditions were compared, and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to evaluate reproducibility. Results: There was a significant difference in SWS acquired using the 3 different machines (P<0.001) or with 9 different angles (P=0.008). There was no significant difference in SWS acquired using 2 probes (P=0.053) or 4 different ROI sizes (P=0.874, 0.778, and 0.865 for 3 operators, respectively). All machines produced substantial intra-system reproducibility (ICC, 0.61-0.80). Both probes demonstrated an almost perfect degree of intra-system agreement (ICC, >0.80), and nearly all ROI sizes demonstrated an almost perfect degree of intra- and inter-operator agreement (ICC, >0.80). The measurement reliability was higher when the acquisition angles were no more than 20°. Conclusions: The 3 machines had different SWS values. Attention should be paid when comparing SWS results using different machines. For the Aixplorer system, the ROI size had no effect on the SWS values. Angles larger than 25° will lead to SWS measurements with greater variability compared to smaller angles (≤20°). 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Richard G Barr; Kazutaka Nakashima; Dominique Amy; David Cosgrove; Andre Farrokh; Fritz Schafer; Jeffrey C Bamber; Laurent Castera; Byung Ihn Choi; Yi-Hong Chou; Christoph F Dietrich; Hong Ding; Giovanna Ferraioli; Carlo Filice; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Timothy J Hall; Kathryn R Nightingale; Mark L Palmeri; Tsuyoshi Shiina; Shinichi Suzuki; Ioan Sporea; Stephanie Wilson; Masatoshi Kudo Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.998