Utility of Vascular Enhancement Technique (ClarifyTM) in Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Abdominal Vessels

PURPOSE: Vascular enhancement (VE) technology(ClarifyTM) is a new technique in vascular, B-mode imaging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of VE technology in ultrasonographic diagnosis of abdominal vasculature. MATERIALS and METHODS: Seventy-one adult patients (39 men and 32 women; age range, 25-89 years; mean age, 56 years) who had undergone abdominal ultrasonography were included in this study. The imaging was performed with a 1.8-4.0 MHz convex array transducer (SONOLINE, Antares, Siemens Medical Solutions, WA) by an abdominal radiologist. The radiologist obtained images of the same vascular area with each of conventional ultrasonography imaging (CUS), tissue harmonic imaging (THI), CUS plus VE technique and THI plus VE technique. Images were divided into normal (56) and abnormal (15) groups. The vessel visibility, conspicuity of the vascular wall and contrast resolution with adjacent structures were evaluated in the normal group, and the lesion conspicuity and border sharpness were evaluated in the abnormal group. On the PACS monitor, the images were graded into four grades by two radiologists in consensus. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: In the normal group, all parameters of the ultrasonographic imaging which applied the VE technique were superior to those of the imaging without VE technique (p < 0.05). In the abnormal group, combined use of VE technique with CUS or THI provided better results than CUS or THI alone in terms of lesion conspicuity and border sharpness (p < 0.05). THI combined with VE technique provided the best image quality among the 4 ultrasonographic methods examined in this study for the evaluation of both normal and abnormal abdominal vessels (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: VE technology was a helpful technique to evaluate the abdominal vasculature. Furthermore, VE technique combined with THI provided better image quality than other ultrasonographic methods in the evaluation of abdominal vessels.

Arthrosonography of the Shoulder Joint for Evaluation of the Glenoid Labrum, Glenoid Rim and Humeral Head: Comparison with Conventional Ultrasonography and MR Arthrography

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic role of arthrosonography, conventional ultrasonography and MR arthrography in the assessment of glenoid labral tear, glenoid rim fracture and humeral head fracture of the shoulder joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The findings of arthrosonography, conventional ultrasonography and MR arthrography were prospectively evaluated in 62 consecutive patients with chronic pain or a history of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder joint. The glenoid labrum was arbitrarily divided into four quadrants: anterosuperior, anteroinferior, posterosuperior, and posteroinferior, and for each, visibility at arthrosonography and conventional ultrasonography was subjectively scored as one of four grades. By means of statistical analysis, the two techniques were then compared. Twenty-six patients subsequently underwent arthroscopy, and the presence or absence of labral tear, glenoid rim fracture and humeral head fracture was determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each modality were separately calculated for each of the three types of shoulder joint injury, and observed differences in these findings were statistically analysed. RESULTS: For all individual quadrants of the labrum, visibility at arthrosonography was higher than at conventional ultrasonography (p.05), though its specificity was significantly higher (p=.003). In this respect, there was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between arthrosonography and MR arthrography (p>.05). For the detection of glenoid rim and humeral head fracture, there were no statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity between the three imaging modalities (p> .05). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional ultrasonography, arthrosonography provides higher visibility of the labrum, thus improving the capacity of ultrasonography to detect labral tear. Arthrosonography could therefore be useful in the diagnosis of labral tear, glenoid rim fracture and humeral head fracture, and may thus partially replace MR arthrography.

Sonographic Evaluation of Breast Nodules: Comparison of Conventional, Real-Time Compound, and Pulse-Inversion Harmonic Images

OBJECTICE: To compare the use of conventional, real-time compound, and pulse-inversion harmonic imaging in the evaluation of breast nodules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two breast nodules were included in this study, conducted between May and December 2000, in which conventional, real-time compound, and pulse-inversion harmonic images were obtained in the same plane. Three radiologists, each blinded to the interpretations of the other two, evaluated the findings, characterizing the lesions and ranking the three techniques from grade 1, the worst, to grade 3, the best. Lesion conspicuity was assessed, and lesions were also characterized in terms of their margin, clarity of internal echotexture, and clarity of posterior echo pattern. The three techniques were compared using Friedman's test, and interobserver agreement in image interpretation was assessed by means of the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: With regard to lesion conspicuity, margin, and internal echotexture of the nodules, real-time compound imaging was the best technique (p < 0.05); in terms of posterior echo pattern, the best was pulse-inversion harmonic imaging (p < 0.05). Real-time compound and pulse inversion harmonic imaging were better than conventional sonography in all evaluative aspects. Interobserver agreement was greater than moderate. CONCLUSION: Real-time compound and pulse-inversion harmonic imaging procedures are superior to conventional sonography in terms of both lesion conspicuity and the further characterization of breast nodules. Real-time compound imaging is the best technique for evaluation of the margin and internal echotexture of nodules, while pulse-inversion harmonic imaging is very effective for the evaluation of the posterior echo patterns.

Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Focal Hepatic Lesions : Comparison of Fundamental, Tissue Harmonic, Fundamental Compound and Harmonic Compound Imaging Techniques

PURPOSE: To compare the ultrasonographic image quality of fundamental imaging (FI), tissue harmonic imaging (THI), fundamental compound imaging (FCI), and harmonic compound imaging (HCI) in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four focal hepatic lesions (27 hemangiomas, 15 hepatocellular carcinomas, 14 metastases, and 38 cysts) in 74 patients [30 males and 44 females aged 33-82 (mean, 55) years] were included in our study. All patients underwent FI, THI, FCI, and HCI using an HDI 5000 Sono CT scanner (Advanced Technology Laboratories, Bothell, CA., U.S.A.) with a 2-5MHz convex transducer. Images were analysed by two abdominal radiologists who used a 4-point scale and reached a consensus. In the case of solid lesions, four parameters, as follows, were evaluated: lesion conspicuity, internal morphology, overall image quality, and peripheral halo. For cysts, three parameters (internal artifact, sharpness of margin, and posterior enhancement) were assessed. For statistical analysis, the Scheffe method (ANOVA test) was used. RESULTS: For solid lesions (hemangioma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastasis), THI, FCI and HCI were superior to FI in terms of lesion conspicuity, internal morphology and overall image quality (p<0.05), though for peripheral halo, the four imaging techniques were not statistically different. For cysts, THI, FCI and HCI revealed clearer internal artifact and better margin sharpness than FI (p<0.05), while in terms of posterior enhancement, THI was superior to both FI and FCI, and HCI was superior to FCI (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: For the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions, harmonic imaging techniques (i.e. THI and HCI) appear to provide better image quality than fundamental imaging techniques (i.e. FI and FCI). There is, however no significant difference in image quality between the two harmonic techniques.

Does Real-time Compound Imaging Improve Evaluation of Breast Cancer Compared to Conventional Sonography? / 한국유방암학회지

PURPOSE: Real-time compound imaging obtains multiple coplanar tomographic ultrasound images and combines them into a single compound image, reducing acoustic artifacts and noise. The purpose of this study is to determine if real-time compound imaging improves evaluation of breast cancer compared to conventional sonography. METHODS: From May 2000 to July 2001, we scanned the same axial plane with conventional sonography and real-time compound imaging in 520 patients with solid breast nodules. Twenty-eight cancers in 25 patients which were confirmed pathologically were included in this study. Twenty-five of 28 cases were invasive ductal carcinoma and the remaining three were ductal carcinoma in situ. Each image pair consisted of a conventional ultrasound and a real-time compound image with a stationary probe, to maintain an identical projection. The evaluating points were 1) contrast between cancer and normal breast tissue, 2) depiction of margin, 3) clarity of internal echotexture, 4) clarity of posterior echo pattern, and 5) clarity of internal microcalcifi-cation. Two radiologists graded for quality of images on a 5-point scale and in a blinded fashion and Wilcoxon rank test was used for comparison between conventional and real-time compound images. RESULTS: For reviewer 1/reviewer 2, compound image showed grade improvements in 1) contrast (1.4?0.5/1.4?0.7), 2) margin (1.4?0.5/1.8?0.4), 3) internal echotexture (1.0?0.5/1.4?0.7), 4) posterior echo pattern (?0.9?0.7/?0.8?0.7), and 5) internal microcalcification (1.8?0.5/1.8?0.5). In all evaluating points, there was statistically significant difference between conventional and compound images (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Real-time compound imaging improves contrast, depiction of margin, and clarity of internal echotexture and internal microcalcification of the breast cancer. But compound image is not effective to evaluate posterior echo pattern of the breast cancer.

The Diagnostic Concordance of Endoanal Ultrasonography and Endoanal MRI in Cases of Anorectal Fistula

PURPOSE: To evaluate the preoperative diagnostic concordance of morphologic classification of anorectal fistula by endoanal ultrasonography (EUSG) and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging (EMRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1998 and March 1999, 17 patients with anorectal fistula underwent endoanal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment. The types of fistula and abscess formation were evaluated, and the findings compared with those obtained during surgery. RESULT: The overall accordance of anorectal fistula was 76% (13 of 17 cases) on ultrasonography and 94% (16 of 17 cases) on magnetic resonance imaging. According to the findings of EUSG, the accordance of each type of anorectal fistula was as follows: transphineteric, 92% (11 of 12 cases); suprasphinteric, 33% (1 of 3); and extrasphincteric, 50% (1 of 2), while for EMRI, the respective figures were 100% (12 of 12 cases), 67% (2 of 3), and 100% (2 of 2). An analysis of reproducibility using kappa value showed that overall concordance between endoanal ultrasonography and surgery(K=0.820) as well as between endoanal MRI and surgery (K=0.866), was very close. CONCLUSION: For the evaluation of anorectal fistula, preoperative endoanal magnetic resonance imaging was more accurate and informative than endoanal ultrasonography.

Comparison between Mammography and Ultrasonography for Palpable Breast Mass: Focusing Fibroadenoma and Breast Cancer

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and breast ultrasonography between fibroadenoma and palpable breast cancer and to evaluate the feasibility of ultrasonography as a primary diagnostic modality to differentiate between these two tumor types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 36 cases of fibroadenoma and 35 of breast cancer, all palpable and pathologically-proven, the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography was retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: In fibroadenoma cases, the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography was 53% and 80%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0162). In cases of breast cancer, the corresponding figures were 74% and 82%, respectively ; the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.55). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography was 63% and 82%, respectively, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.0164). The total diagnostic accuracy of both studies was 90%, and this was significantly different (p=0.044) from that of ultrasonography (82%). CONCLUSION: In patients who have clinically palpable breast masses, ultrasonography can be recommended as the primary diagnostic modality, though for other breast lesions, mammography is the recommended primary modality.