Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 463–466 | Cite as

High-frequency transducers for point-of-care ultrasound applications: what is the optimal frequency range?

  • Srikar Adhikari


To compare images obtained using two linear transducers with a different range of frequencies, and to determine if there is a significant difference in the quality of images between the two transducers for medical decision-making. This was a single-blinded, cross-sectional study at an academic medical center. Twenty-five emergency medicine clinical scenarios with ultrasound images (using both 10–5 and 14–5 MHz transducers) covering a variety of point-of-care ultrasound applications were presented to four emergency physician sonographers. They were blinded to the study hypothesis and type of the transducer used to obtain the images. On a scale of 1–10, the mean image quality rating for 10–5 MHz transducer was 7.09 (95 % CI 6.73–7.45) and 6.49 (95 % CI 5.99–6.99) for 14–5 MHz transducer. In the majority of cases (84 %, 95 % CI 75.7–92.3 %), sonographers indicated that images obtained with a 10–5 MHz transducer were satisfactory for medical decision-making. They preferred images obtained with a 10–5 MHz transducer over 14–5 MHz transducer in 39 % (95 % CI 30–50 %) of cases. The images obtained with a 14–5 MHz transducer were preferred over 10–5 MHz transducer in only 16 % (95 % CI 7.7–24.3 %) of the cases. The 14–5 MHz transducer has a slight advantage over 10–5 MHz transducer for ocular, upper airway, and musculoskeletal (tendon) ultrasound applications. A 10–5 MHz linear transducer is adequate to obtain images that can be used for medical decision-making for a variety of point-of-care ultrasound applications.


Portable ultrasound Emergency physician Point-of-care ultrasound Linear transducer 




Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Ault MJ, Rosen BT (2010) Portable ultrasound: the next generation arrives. Crit Ultrasound J 2(1):39–42PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Emergency Physicians (2009) Emergency ultrasound guidelines. Ann Emerg Med 53(4):550–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scruggs W, Fox JC (2014) Equipment. In: Ma OJ, Mateer J, Reardon R, Joing S (eds) Emergency ultrasound, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 15–32Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ultrasound transducers (2013). Accessed 6 Oct 2013
  5. 5.
    Transducers (2013). Accessed 6 Oct 2013
  6. 6.
    Our universal transducers work with all Ultrasonix systems (2013). Accessed 6 Oct 2013
  7. 7.
    Frederiksen CA, Juhl-Olsen P, Sloth E (2012) Advances in imaging: ultrasound in every physician’s pocket. Expert Opin Med Diagn 6(3):167–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Griffin J, Nicholls B (2010) Ultrasound in regional anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 65(Suppl 1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adhikari S, Zeger W, Schmier C, Crum T, Craven A, Frrokaj I, Pang H, Shostrom V (2011) Pilot study to determine the utility of point-of-care ultrasound in the assessment of difficult laryngoscopy. Acad Emerg Med 18(7):754–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaspari R, Blehar D, Mendoza M, Montoya A, Moon C, Polan D (2009) Use of ultrasound elastography for skin and subcutaneous abscesses. J Ultrasound Med 28(7):855–860PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teismann N, Lenaghan P, Nolan R, Stein J, Green A (2013) Point-of-care ocular ultrasound to detect optic disc swelling. Acad Emerg Med 20(9):920–925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Arizona Medical CenterTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations