Prospective Comparison of Nine Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices by Ultrasound Experts with Regard to B-Scan Quality, Device Handling and Software in Abdominal Sonography.

BACKGROUND: The HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of nine different HHUS devices in terms of B-scan quality, device handling, and software features under abdominal imaging conditions. METHODS: Nine different HHUS devices (Butterfly iQ+, Clarius C3HD3, D5CL Microvue, Philips Lumify, SonoEye Chison, SonoSite iViz, Mindray TE Air, GE Vscan Air, and Youkey Q7) were used in a prospective setting by a total of 12 experienced examiners on the same subjects in each case and then assessed using a detailed questionnaire regarding B-scan quality, handling, and usability of the software. The evaluation was carried out using a point scale (5 points: very good; 1 point: insufficient). RESULTS: In the overall evaluation, Vscan Air and SonoEye Chison achieved the best ratings. They achieved nominal ratings between "good" (4 points) and "very good" (5 points). Both devices differed significantly (p < 0.01) from the other seven devices tested. Among the HHUS devices, Clarius C3HD3 and Vscan Air achieved the best results for B-mode quality, D5CL Microvue achieved the best results for device handling, and SonoEye Chison and Vscan Air achieved the best results for software. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study to directly compare different HHUS devices in a head-to-head manner. While the majority of the tested devices demonstrated satisfactory performance, notable discrepancies were observed between them. In particular, the B-scan quality exhibited considerable variation, which may have implications for the clinical application of HHUS. The findings of this study can assist in the selection of an appropriate HHUS device for specific applications, considering the clinical objectives and acknowledging the inherent limitations.

Prospective Comparison of Handheld Ultrasound Devices from Different Manufacturers with Respect to B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance for Various Abdominal Sonography Questions.

BACKGROUND: Handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices have chiefly been deployed in emergency medicine, where they are considered a valid tool. The data situation is less clear in the case of internal questions in abdominal sonography. In our study, we investigate whether HHUS devices from different manufacturers differ in their B-scan quality, and whether any differences are relevant for the significance of an internal ultrasound examination. METHOD: The study incorporated eight HHUS devices from different manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of seven defined sonographic questions were recorded with all of the devices. The analogue recording of the same findings with a conventional high-end ultrasound (HEUS) device served as an evaluation criterion. Then, the corresponding findings were played side by side and evaluated by fourteen ultrasound experts using a point scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient). RESULTS: The HHUS devices achieved relatively good results in terms of both the B-scan quality assessment and the ability to answer the clinical question, regardless of the manufacturer. One of the tested HHUS devices even achieved a significantly (p < 0.05) higher average points score in both the evaluation of B-scan quality and in the evaluation of clinical significance than the other devices. Regardless of the manufacturer, the HHUS devices performed best when determining the status/inferior vena cava volume and in the representation of ascites/free fluid. CONCLUSION: In various clinical abdominal sonography questions, HHUS systems can reliably reproduce findings, and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS systems. Irrespective of this, the present study demonstrated relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Differences in the B-mode imaging quality of ultrasound devices in the mid-price segment.

AIMS: A meaningful sonographic examination is decisively dependent on the B-scan quality of the ultrasound device. When selecting a suitable ultrasound device, B-scan quality should be an important purchase criterion. Although there is no generally accepted method to measure B-scan quality, we tried to evaluate comparable sonography devices from different manufacturers regarding B-scan quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically assessed the B-scan quality in ultrasound devices of seven different manufacturers from the mid-price segment. All 7 ultrasound units tested had comparable equipment features and the purchase value of approximately $20,000. We recorded video sequences and compared B-mode image quality. We used both physiological sectional images and pathological findings from abdominal ultrasound. RESULTS: We identified three ultrasound units that scored significantly better in measuring the B-scan quality than the other devices. The Canon Xario 200, the General Electric Logiq P7 and the Mindray DC70 (in alphabetical order) were the units that outperformed all others.The differences identified were found to be statistically significant. A subgroup analysis showed that the contrasts in quality were more pronounced in near-field examinations than in examinations with greater penetration depth. CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable qualitative discrepancies in B-scan ultrasound devices despite being similar in terms of equipment and price. Our findings show that these differences are statistically detectable and likely clinically relevant.

Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices-A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care.

BACKGROUND: the use of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) devices is well established in prehospital emergency diagnostics, as well as in intensive care settings. This is based on several studies in which HHUS devices were compared to conventional high-end ultrasonography (HEUS) devices. Nonetheless, there is limited evidence regarding potential variations in B-scan quality among HHUS devices from various manufacturers, and regarding whether any such differences hold clinical significance in intensive care medicine settings. METHODS: this study included the evaluation of eight HHUS devices sourced from diverse manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of five previously defined sonographic questions (volume status/inferior vena cava, pleural effusion, pulmonary B-lines, gallbladder, and needle tracking in situ) were recorded with all devices. The analogue recording of the same pathologies with a HEUS device served as gold standard. The corresponding findings (HHUS and HEUS) were then played side by side and evaluated by sixteen intensive care physicians experienced in sonography. The B-scan quality and the clinical significance of the HHUS were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient). RESULTS: both in assessing the quality of B-scans and in their ability to answer clinical questions, the HHUS achieved convincing results-regardless of the manufacturer. For example, only 8.6% (B-scan quality) and 9.8% (clinical question) of all submitted assessments received an "insufficient" rating. One HHUS device showed a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average points score in the assessment of B-scan quality (3.9 ± 0.65 points) and in the evaluation of clinical significance (4.03 ± 0.73 points), compared to the other devices. CONCLUSIONS: HHUS systems are able to reliably answer various clinical intensive care questions and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS devices. Irrespective of this, the present study was able to demonstrate relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.