RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Since handheld ultrasound devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, objective criteria to determine image quality are needed. We therefore conducted a comparison of objective quality measures and clinical performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparison of handheld devices (Butterfly IQ+, Clarius HD, Clarius HD3, Philips Lumify, GE VScan Air) and workstations (GE Logiq E10, Toshiba Aplio 500) was performed using a phantom. As a comparison, clinical investigations were performed by two experienced ultrasonographers by measuring the resolution of anatomical structures in the liver, pancreas, and intestine in ten subjects. RESULTS: Axial full width at half maximum resolution (FWHM) of 100µm phantom pins at depths between one and twelve cm ranged from 0.6-1.9mm without correlation to pin depth. Lateral FWHM resolution ranged from 1.3-8.7mm and was positively correlated with depth (r=0.6). Axial and lateral resolution differed between devices (p<0.001) with the lowest median lateral resolution observed in the E10 (5.4mm) and the lowest axial resolution (1.6mm) for the IQ+ device. Although devices showed no significant differences in most clinical applications, ultrasonographers were able to differentiate a median of two additional layers in the wall of the sigmoid colon and one additional structure in segmental portal fields (p<0.05) using cartwheel devices. CONCLUSION: While handheld devices showed superior or similar performance in the phantom and routine measurements, workstations still provided superior clinical imaging and resolution of anatomical substructures, indicating a lack of objective measurements to evaluate clinical ultrasound devices.
