Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and validation of a gel wax phantom to evaluate geometric accuracy and measurement of a hyperechoic target diameter in diagnostic ultrasound imaging

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diagnostic ultrasound (US) scanners are generally evaluated using proprietary quality assurance (QA) phantoms, but their prohibitively high cost may prevent organizations to perform the necessary tests. This study aimed to develop a low-cost gel wax phantom with targets to determine the lateral and axial resolution and diameter of a hyperechoic target in an US scanner. The acoustic property (AP) of gel wax, which includes the speed of sound (cus), acoustic impedance (Z), and attenuation coefficient (µ), were determined for multiple transducers operating at 2.25, 5, 10, 15, and 30 MHz. These results were compared to the AP of soft tissue. Two polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) rectangular frames with holes separated by 5, 10, and 20 mm were constructed. Nylon filaments and stainless-steel disc (SS disc) (diameter = 16.8 mm) were threaded through the frames and suitably placed in gel wax to obtain orthogonal targets in the phantom. The target dimensions obtained from computerized tomography (CT) and US images of the phantom were compared for phantom validation. The average cus=1431.4 m/s, mass density ρ = 0.87 g/cm3, Z = 1.24 MRayls, and µ ranged from 0.7 to 0.98 dB/cm/MHz for gel wax at 22 °C. The US image measurement exhibited a maximum error in determining the diameter of the SS disc, resulting in a value of 18 mm instead of its actual value of 16.8 mm. The phantom volume decreased by 1.8% in 62 weeks. The present phantom is affordable, stable, customizable, and can be used to evaluate diagnostic US scanners across multiple centers.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig.  2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goodsitt MM, Carson PL, Witt S, Hykes DL, Kofler JM (1998) Real-time B-mode ultrasound quality control test procedures: report of AAPM ultrasound task group No. 1. Med Phys 25:1385–1406. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kofler JM. Quality assurance of ultrasound imagers: procedures, expectations, and philosophies. AAPM 43rd Annu Meet Am. 2001:1–37.

  3. Sipilä O, Mannila V, Vartiainen E (2011) Quality assurance in diagnostic ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 80:519–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weigang B, Moore GW, Gessert J, Phillips WH, Schafer M (2003) The methods and effects of transducer degradation on image quality and the clinical efficacy of diagnostic sonography. J Diagn Med Sonogr 19:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756479302239545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Earle M, Portu GD, Devos E (2016) Agar ultrasound phantoms for low-cost training without refrigeration. Afr J Emerg Med 6:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2015.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kendall JL, Faragher JP (2007) Ultrasound-guided central venous access: a homemade phantom for simulation. Can J Emerg Med 9:371–373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1481803500015335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bude R 0, Adler RS (1995) An Easily Made, Low-Cost, Tissue-Like Ultrasound Phantom Material. vol. 23.

  8. Madsen EL, Frank GR, Dong F (1998) Liquid or solid ultrasonically tissue-mimicking materials with very low scatter. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:535–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(98)00013-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oudry J, Bastard C, Miette V, Willinger R, Sandrin L (2009) Copolymer-in-oil phantom materials for elastography. Ultrasound Med Biol 35:1185–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.01.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones CJM, Munro PRT (2018) Stability of gel wax based optical scattering phantoms. Biomed Opt Express 9:3495. https://doi.org/10.1364/boe.9.003495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Vieira SL, Pavan TZ, Junior JE, Carneiro AAO (2013) Paraffin-gel tissue-mimicking material for Ultrasound-guided needle biopsy Phantom. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:2477–2484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2013.06.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maneas E, Xia W, Nikitichev DI, Daher B, Manimaran M, Wong RYJ et al (2018) Anatomically realistic ultrasound phantoms using gel wax with 3D printed moulds. Phys Med Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa9e2c

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Daly R, Planas JH, Ann M (2017) Adapting Gel Wax into an ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis model at low cost. West J Emerg Med 114:114–116. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.10.31506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Browne JE, Ramnarine KV, Watson AJ, Hoskins PR (2003) Mimicking Test Phantoms 29:1053–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(03)00053-X.

  15. Mast TD (2000) Empirical relationships between acoustic parameters in human soft tissues. Acoust Res Lett Online 1:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1336896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Phani D, Varadarajulu RK, Thomas A, Paramu R, Singh MS, Shaiju VS et al (2020) Acoustic and ultrasonographic characterization of polychloroprene, beeswax, and carbomer-gel to mimic soft-tissue for diagnostic ultrasound. Phys Eng Sci Med 43:1171–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00919-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bushberg JT, Boone JM (2011) The essential physics of medical imaging. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, United States

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bigelow TA (2008) Ultrasound attenuation estimation using backscattered echoes from multiple sources. J Acoust Soc Am 124:1367–1373. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2949519

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Maruvada S, Shung KK, Wang S-H (2000) High-frequency backscatter and attenuation measurements of selected bovine tissues between 10 and 30 MHz. Ultrasound Med Biol 26:1043–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(00)00227-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. White R, Kopchok G, Zalewski M, Ayres B, Wilson E, De Virgilio C et al (1996) Comparison of the deployment and healing of thin-walled expanded PTFE stented grafts and covered stents. Ann Vasc Surg 10:336–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02286777

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vatnitsky SM, International Atomic Energy Agency (2008) Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques : report of the Coordinated Research Project on Development of Procedures for Quality Assurance of Dosimetry Calculations in Radiotherapy. International Atomic Energy Agency

  22. Cabrelli LC, Pelissari PI, Deana AM, Carneiro AA, Pavan TZ (2016) Stable phantom materials for ultrasound and optical imaging. Phys Med Biol 62:432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Drever L, Hilts M (2007) Daily quality assurance phantom for ultrasound image guided radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 8:126–136. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i3.2467

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Najafi M, Afsham N, Abolmaesumi P, Rohling R (2014) A closed-form differential formulation for ultrasound spatial calibration: multi-wedge phantom. Ultrasound Med Biol 40:2231–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.03.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dendy PP, Heaton B (2011) Physics for Diagnostic Radiology, 3rd edn. CRC Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Wong EY, Thorne ML, Nikolov HN, Poepping TL, Holdsworth DW (2008) Doppler ultrasound compatible plastic material for use in rigid flow models. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:1846–1856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. De Carvalho IM, Basto RLQ, Infantosi AFC, Von Krüger MA, Pereira WCA (2010) Breast ultrasound imaging phantom to mimic malign lesion characteristics. Phys Procedia 3:421–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2010.01.055

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor Z, Jonveaux L, Caskey C (2017) Development of a Portable and Inexpensive Ultrasound Imaging Device for Use in the Developing World. URL Httpswww Semanticscholar OrgpaperDevelopment—Portable–Inexpensive-Imaging-Taylor-Jonveaux4a45c73373a1e1168f7a276d977d65cebc29e0eb

  29. Khalitov RS, Gurbatov SN, Demin IY (2016) The use of the Verasonics ultrasound system to measure shear wave velocities in CIRS phantoms. Phys Wave Phenom 24:73–76. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1541308X16010143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ali A, Logeswaran R (2007) A visual probe localization and calibration system for cost-effective computer-aided 3D ultrasound. Comput Biol Med 37:1141–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2006.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Soehl M, Walsh R, Rankin A, Lasso A, Fichtinger G (2014) Tracked ultrasound calibration studies with a phantom made of LEGO bricks. Med. Imaging 2014 Image-Guid. Proced. Robot. Interv. Model., vol. 9036, SPIE; p. 90362R-90362R. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2044121

  32. Poon TC, Rohling RN (2005) Comparison of calibration methods for spatial tracking of a 3-D ultrasound probe. Ultrasound Med Biol 31:1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Luan H, Qi F, Xue Z, Chen L, Shen D (2008) Multimodality image registration by maximization of quantitative-qualitative measure of mutual information. Pattern Recognit 41:285–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2007.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pagoulatos N, Haynor DR, Kim Y (2001) A fast calibration method for 3-D tracking of ultrasound images using a spatial localizer. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:1219–1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(01)00431-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Ramesh Babu V, Precision Fabrication Facility, Biomedical Technology Wing, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology Trivandrum, Kerala, INDIA, for fabricating the polytetrafluoroethylene frames used in this study. We thank Jyoti R Seth, Advanced Rheology Facility, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Powai, Mumbai, INDIA, for providing the information on polyethylene gels and gel waxes.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 695011, India

    Debjani Phani, Raghukumar Paramu, George Zacharia, V S Shaiju & Raghuram Kesavan Nair

  2. Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 078, India

    Debjani Phani

  3. Meenakshi Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 631552, India

    Rajasekhar Konduru Varadarajulu

  4. School of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram (IISER-TVM), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 695551, India

    Arijit Paramanick, Souradip Paul & M Suheshkumar Singh

  5. Department of Radio Diagnosis, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 695011, India

    Venugopal Muraleedharan

Authors
  1. Debjani Phani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajasekhar Konduru Varadarajulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arijit Paramanick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Souradip Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raghukumar Paramu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. George Zacharia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. V S Shaiju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Venugopal Muraleedharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M Suheshkumar Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Raghuram Kesavan Nair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Phantom preparation and data collection were performed by DP, AP, SP, GZ, and SVS. Analysis was performed by VM, RKV, RP, MSS and RKN. The first draft of the manuscript was written by DP, and all authors commented on previous versions. The final manuscript was read and approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debjani Phani.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies performed on human participants or animals.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Phani, D., Varadarajulu, R.K., Paramanick, A. et al. Development and validation of a gel wax phantom to evaluate geometric accuracy and measurement of a hyperechoic target diameter in diagnostic ultrasound imaging. Phys Eng Sci Med 47, 261–272 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01362-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01362-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation