Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of shear wave velocities on ultrasound elastography between different machines, transducers, and acquisition depths: a phantom study

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate consistency in shear wave velocities (SWVs) on ultrasound elastography using different machines, transducers and acquisition depths.

Methods

The SWVs were measured using an elasticity phantom with a Young’s modulus of 16.9 kPa, with three recently introduced ultrasound elastography machines (A, B and C from different vendors) and two transducers (low and high frequencies) at four depths (2, 3, 4 and 5 cm). Mean SWVs from 15 measurements and coefficient of variations (CVs) were compared between three machines, two transducers and four acquisition depths.

Results

The SWVs using the high frequency transducer were not acquired at 5 cm depth in machine B, and a high frequency transducer was not available in machine C. The mean SWVs in the three machines were different (p ≤ 0.002). The CVs were 0–0.09 in three machines. The mean SWVs between the two transducers were different (p < 0.001) except at 4 and 5 cm depths in machine A. The SWVs were affected by the acquisition depths in all conditions (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

There is considerable difference in SWVs on ultrasound elastography depending on different machines, transducers and acquisition depths. Caution is needed when using the cutoff values of SWVs in different conditions.

Key Points

• The shear wave velocities (SWVs) are different between different ultrasound elastography machines

• The SWVs are also different between different transducers and acquisition depths

• Caution is needed when using the cutoff SWVs measured under different conditions

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ARFI:

Acoustic radiation force impulse

CV:

Coefficient of variation

ROI:

Region of interest

SSI:

Supersonic shear imaging

SWE:

Shear wave elastography

SWV:

Shear wave velocity

References

  1. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X (1991) Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 13:111–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gennisson JL, Deffieux T, Fink M, Tanter M (2013) Ultrasound elastography: principles and techniques. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:487–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jeong WK, Lim HK, Lee HK, Jo JM, Kim Y (2014) Principles and clinical application of ultrasound elastography for diffuse liver disease. Ultrasonography 33:149–160

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Park MK (2014) Usefulness of acoustic radiation force impulse elastography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant solid pancreatic lesions. Ultrasonography 33:26–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlsen JF, Ewertsen C, Saftoiu A, Lonn L, Nielsen MB (2014) Accuracy of visual scoring and semi-quantification of ultrasound strain elastography–a phantom study. PLoS One 9, e88699

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Havre RF, Elde E, Gilja OH, Odegaard S, Eide GE, Matre K et al (2008) Freehand real-time elastography: impact of scanning parameters on image quality and in vitro intra- and interobserver validations. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:1638–1650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedrich-Rust M, Wunder K, Kriener S, Sotoudeh F, Richter S, Bojunga J et al (2009) Liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis: noninvasive assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging versus transient elastography. Radiology 252:595–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grazhdani H, Cantisani V, Lodise P, Di Rocco G, Proietto MC, Fioravanti E et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of acoustic radiation force impulse technology in the differentiation of thyroid nodules: accuracy and interobserver variability assessment. J Ultrasound 17:13–20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang CZ, Zheng J, Huang ZP, Xiao Y, Song D, Zeng J et al (2014) Influence of measurement depth on the stiffness assessment of healthy liver with real-time shear wave elastography. Ultrasound Med Biol 40:461–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tozaki M, Saito M, Joo C, Yamaguchi M, Isobe S, Ogawa Y et al (2011) Ultrasonographic tissue quantification of the breast using acoustic radiation force impulse technology: phantom study and clinical application. Jpn J Radiol 29:598–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carlsen JF, Pedersen MR, Ewertsen C, Saftoiu A, Lonn L, Rafaelsen SR et al (2015) A comparative study of strain and shear-wave elastography in an elasticity phantom. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W236–W242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hall TJ, Milkowski A, Garra B, Carson P, Palmeri M, Nightingale K, Lynch T, Alturki A, Andre M, Audiere S (2013) RSNA/QIBA: shear wave speed as a biomarker for liver fibrosis staging. Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 2013 I.E. International. IEEE, pp 397–400

  13. Chang S, Kim MJ, Kim J, Lee MJ (2013) Variability of shear wave velocity using different frequencies in acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography: a phantom and normal liver study. Ultraschall Med 34:260–265

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dillman JR, Chen S, Davenport MS, Zhao H, Urban MW, Song P et al (2015) Superficial ultrasound shear wave speed measurements in soft and hard elasticity phantoms: repeatability and reproducibility using two ultrasound systems. Pediatr Radiol 45:376–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamanaka N, Kaminuma C, Taketomi-Takahashi A, Tsushima Y (2012) Reliable measurement by virtual touch tissue quantification with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: phantom study. J Ultrasound Med 31:1239–1244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhao H, Song P, Urban MW, Kinnick RR, Yin M, Greenleaf JF et al (2011) Bias observed in time-of-flight shear wave speed measurements using radiation force of a focused ultrasound beam. Ultrasound Med Biol 37:1884–1892

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu B, Liang J, Zheng Y, Xie X, Huang G, Zhou L et al (2015) Two-dimensional shear wave elastography as promising diagnostic tool for predicting malignant thyroid nodules: a prospective single-centre experience. Eur Radiol 25:624–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ko KH, Jung HK, Kim SJ, Kim H, Yoon JH (2014) Potential role of shear-wave ultrasound elastography for the differential diagnosis of breast non-mass lesions: preliminary report. Eur Radiol 24:305–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vergari C, Dubois G, Vialle R, Gennisson JL, Tanter M, Dubousset J et al (2015) Lumbar annulus fibrosus biomechanical characterization in healthy children by ultrasound shear wave elastography. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3911-0

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vergari C, Rouch P, Dubois G, Bonneau D, Dubousset J, Tanter M et al (2014) Non-invasive biomechanical characterization of intervertebral discs by shear wave ultrasound elastography: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 24:3210–3216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Sant G, Ates F, Brasseur JL, Nordez A (2015) Elastography study of hamstring behaviors during passive stretching. PLoS One 10, e0139272

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sun Z, Xie M, Xiang F, Song Y, Yu C, Zhang Y et al (2015) Utility of real-time shear wave elastography in the assessment of testicular torsion. PLoS One 10, e0138523

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Fontanilla T, Canas T, Macia A, Alfageme M, Gutierrez Junquera C, Malalana A et al (2014) Normal values of liver shear wave velocity in healthy children assessed by acoustic radiation force impulse imaging using a convex probe and a linear probe. Ultrasound Med Biol 40:470–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Franchi-Abella S, Elie C, Correas JM (2013) Ultrasound elastography: advantages, limitations and artefacts of the different techniques from a study on a phantom. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:497–501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sporea I, Bota S, Gradinaru-Tascau O, Sirli R, Popescu A (2014) Comparative study between two point shear wave elastographic techniques: acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography and ElastPQ. Med Ultrason 16:309–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang ZP, Zhang XL, Zeng J, Zheng J, Wang P, Zheng RQ (2014) Study of detection times for liver stiffness evaluation by shear wave elastography. World J Gastroenterol 20:9578–9584

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee MJ, Kim MJ, Han KH, Yoon CS (2013) Age-related changes in liver, kidney, and spleen stiffness in healthy children measured with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging. Eur J Radiol 82:e290–e294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gallotti A, D'Onofrio M, Pozzi Mucelli R (2010) Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) technique in ultrasound with Virtual Touch tissue quantification of the upper abdomen. Radiol Med 115:889–897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zheng XZ, Ji P, Mao HW, Zhang XY, Xia EH, Xing G et al (2011) A novel approach to assessing changes in prostate stiffness with age using virtual touch tissue quantification. J Ultrasound Med 30:387–390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Mi-Jung Lee. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Ha Yan Kim and Yun Ho Roh (Yonsei University College of Medicine) kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript and they were included in the authors. Institutional review board approval was not required because this study was a phantom study. This study is an experimental study performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Children’s Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea

    Hyun Joo Shin, Myung-Joon Kim & Mi-Jung Lee

  2. Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea

    Ha Yan Kim & Yun Ho Roh

Authors
  1. Hyun Joo Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Myung-Joon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ha Yan Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yun Ho Roh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mi-Jung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mi-Jung Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shin, H.J., Kim, MJ., Kim, H.Y. et al. Comparison of shear wave velocities on ultrasound elastography between different machines, transducers, and acquisition depths: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 26, 3361–3367 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4212-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4212-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation