Premium
Measured acoustic intensities for clinical diagnostic ultrasound transducers and correlation with thermal index
Author(s) -
Retz K.,
Kotopoulis S.,
Kiserud T.,
Matre K.,
Eide G. E.,
Sande R.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1002/uog.17298
Subject(s) - transducer , medicine , ultrasound , mechanical index , hydrophone , doppler effect , acoustics , imaging phantom , diagnostic ultrasound , biomedical engineering , ultrasonic sensor , nuclear medicine , radiology , physics , astronomy , microbubbles
Objectives To investigate if the thermal index for bone ( TIB ) displayed on screen is an adequate predictor for the derated spatial‐peak temporal‐average ( I SPTA .3 ) and spatial‐peak pulse‐average ( I SPPA .3 ) acoustic intensities in a selection of clinical diagnostic ultrasound machines and transducers. Methods We calibrated five clinical diagnostic ultrasound scanners and 10 transducers, using two‐dimensional grayscale, color Doppler and pulsed‐wave Doppler, both close to and far from the transducer, with a TIB between 0.1 and 4.0, recording 103 unique measurements. Acoustic measurements were performed in a bespoke three‐axis computer‐controlled scanning tank, using a 200‐ μ m‐diameter calibrated needle hydrophone. Results There was significant but poor correlation between the acoustic intensities and the on‐screen TIB . At a TIB of 0.1, the I SPTA .3 range was 0.51–50.49 mW /cm 2 and the I SPPA .3 range was 0.01–207.29 W/cm 2 . At a TIB of 1.1, the I SPTA .3 range was 19.02–309.44 mW /cm 2 and the I SPPA .3 range was 3.87–51.89 W/cm 2 . Conclusions TIB is a poor predictor for I SPTA .3 and I SPPA .3 and for the potential bioeffects of clinical diagnostic ultrasound scanners. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.