Premium
Review of artifacts associated with transrectal ultrasound: Understanding, recognition, and prevention of misinterpretation
Author(s) -
Hulsmans Fransjan J. H.,
Castelijns Jonas A.,
Reeders Jacques W. A. J.,
Tytgat Guido N. J.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
journal of clinical ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.272
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1097-0096
pISSN - 0091-2751
DOI - 10.1002/jcu.1870230805
Subject(s) - medicine , ultrasound , radiology , refraction , reverberation , reflection (computer programming) , optics , acoustics , computer science , physics , programming language
Artifacts are inadequate representations of the structures being imaged. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) used for evaluating rectal tumors has its own, unique spectrum of artifacts such as (1) pseudomasses (beam thickness: imaging of rectal folds; mirror image: reflection at an intraluminal fluid level); (2) inadequate size of the lesion (mirror image or grating lobes); (3) simulation of malignant infiltration (beam thickness, attenuation or refraction); (4) incomplete field of view (shadowing; reverberation or mirror‐image); (5) confusing echo patterns (side lobe artifacts or mirror image: reflection at the balloon surface). The understanding of the physical properties of ultrasound is the basis for the recognition of these artifacts and prevention of misinterpretation. We present a review of these artifacts and their causes. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.