Literature DB >> 7699176

Measurement and correction of ultrasonic pulse distortion produced by the human breast.

L M Hinkelman1, D L Liu, R C Waag, Q Zhu, B D Steinberg.   

Abstract

Ultrasonic wavefront distortion produced by transmission through breast tissue specimens was measured in a two-dimensional aperture. Differences in arrival time and energy level between the measured waveforms and references that account for geometric delay and spreading were calculated. Also calculated was a waveform similarity factor that is decreased from 1.0 by changes in waveform shape. For nine different breast specimens, the arrival time fluctuations had an average (+/- s.d.) rms value of 66.8 (+/- 12.6) ns and an associated correlation length of 4.3 (+/- 1.1) mm, while the energy level fluctuations had an average rms value of 5.0 (+/- 0.5) dB and a correlation length of 3.4 (+/- 0.8) mm. The corresponding waveform similarity factor was 0.910 (+/- 0.023). The effect of the wavefront distortion on focusing and the ability of time-shift compensation to remove the distortion were evaluated by comparing parameters such as the -30-dB effective radius, the -10-dB peripheral energy ratio, and the level at which the effective radius departs from an ideal by 10% for the focus obtained without compensation, with time-shift estimation and compensation in the aperture, and with time-shift estimation and compensation performed after backpropagation. For the nine specimens, the average -10-dB peripheral energy ratio of the focused beams fell from 3.82 (+/- 1.83) for the uncompensated data to 0.96 (+/- 0.18) with time-shift compensation in the aperture and to 0.63 (+/- 0.07) with time-shift compensation after backpropagation. The average -30-dB effective radius and average 10% deviation level were 4.5 (+/- 0.8) mm and -19.2 (+/- 3.5) dB, respectively, for compensation in the aperture and 3.2 (+/- 0.7) mm and -22.8 (+/- 2.8) dB, respectively, for compensation after backpropagation. The corresponding radius for the uncompensated data was not meaningful because the dynamic range of the focus was generally less than 30 dB in the elevation direction, while the average 10% deviation level for the uncompensated data was -4.9 (+/- 4.1) dB. The results indicate that wavefront distortion produced by breast significantly degrades ultrasonic focus in the low MHz frequency range and that much of this degradation can be eliminated using wavefront backpropagation and time-shift compensation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7699176     DOI: 10.1121/1.412069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  8 in total

1.  Pseudononlinear ultrasound simulation approach for reverberation clutter.

Authors:  Brett Byram; Jasmine Shu
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-12-08

2.  Local speed of sound estimation in tissue using pulse-echo ultrasound: Model-based approach.

Authors:  Marko Jakovljevic; Scott Hsieh; Rehman Ali; Gustavo Chau Loo Kung; Dongwoon Hyun; Jeremy J Dahl
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Focal point determination in magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound using tracking coils.

Authors:  Bryant T Svedin; Michael J Beck; J Rock Hadley; Robb Merrill; Joshua T de Bever; Bradley D Bolster; Allison Payne; Dennis L Parker
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Coherence-based quantification of acoustic clutter sources in medical ultrasound.

Authors:  James Long; Will Long; Nick Bottenus; Gregg Trahey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Large-scale propagation of ultrasound in a 3-D breast model based on high-resolution MRI data.

Authors:  Gheorghe Salahura; Jason C Tillett; Leon A Metlay; Robert C Waag
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-02-17       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  The Impact of Model-Based Clutter Suppression on Cluttered, Aberrated Wavefronts.

Authors:  Kazuyuki Dei; Brett Byram
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.725

7.  Phase-Aberration Correction for HIFU Therapy Using a Multielement Array and Backscattering of Nonlinear Pulses.

Authors:  Gilles P L Thomas; Tatiana D Khokhlova; Christopher R Bawiec; Alex T Peek; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Matthew O'Donnell; Vera A Khokhlova
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.725

Review 8.  Spatial Coherence in Medical Ultrasound: A Review.

Authors:  James Long; Gregg Trahey; Nick Bottenus
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 3.694

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.