Quality Assurance in Diagnostic Ultrasound

  • Albert Goldstein
Part of the Medical Methods book series (MM)

Abstract

This chapter is written primarily for those personnel responsible for ultrasound, whether physician or technologist, in the clinical laboratory. Its purpose is to impart an understanding of the basic facts concerning procedures for the use of ultrasound B-scan equipment that will assure a high level of day-to-day performance.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, 1979 edition, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals Electrical Safety Procedures in Function Safety and Sanitation Section, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. ANSI/AAMI, Safe Current Limits for Electromedical Apparatus, American National Standard, American National Standards Institution/Associat ion for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, New York, NY, December 1978.Google Scholar
  3. Banjavic, R. A., Zagzebski, J. A., Madsen, E. L. and Jutila, R. E., Ultrasonic beam sensitivity profile changes in mammalian tissue, Ultrasound in Medicine, vol. 4, White, D., and Lyons, E. A., eds., Plenum Press, 1978, pp. 515–518.Google Scholar
  4. Goldstein, A., Gray-scale shifts in ultrasound displays, Radiology 121, 157–162, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldstein, A., and Langrill, L., Transducer Frequency Test Object, paper presented at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 1978a.Google Scholar
  6. Goldstein, A, and Langrill, L. N., Measured transducer frequency variations, RSN A 64th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 1978b, program p. 270.Google Scholar
  7. Goldstein, A., and Langrill, L. N., Ethylene glycol-water mixtures for use in ultrasound test objects, J. Clin. Ultrasound 7, 465–470, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hefner, L. V., Parks, J. A., and Goldstein, A., Transducer beam pattern test object, J. Clin. Ultrasound 8, 5–10, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Medical Device Act, Public Law, 94–295, US Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Wells, P. T. N., Biomedical Ultrasonics, Academic Press, London, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Riley, W. A., Barnes, R. W., and McKinney, W. M., A simple optical method for observing medical ultrasound pulse characteristics in vitro, J. Clin. Ultrasound 7, 198–203, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

General Review Articles

  1. Havlice, J. F., and Teanzer, J. C., Medical ultrasonic imaging: An overview of principles and instrumentation, Proc. IEEE 67, 620–641, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Maginness, M. G., Methods and terminology for diagnostic ultrasound imaging systems, Proc. IEEE 67, 641–653, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deter, R. L., and Hobbins, J. C., A survey of abdominal ultrasound scanners: The clinicians’ point of view, Proc. IEEE 67, 664–671, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Wells, P. N. T., Ultrasonics in medicine and biology, Phys. Med. Biol. 22, 629–669, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Proper Equipment Operation Hardcopy Care

  1. Nickoloff, E. L., Leo, F., and Reese, M., A comparison of five methods for monitoring the precision of automated X-ray film, Radiology 129, 509–514, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar

System Performance and Testing Introduction

  1. Stewart, H. F., Concepts for specifications of ultrasound diagnostic equipment performance (Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, 20652) in Ultrasound in Medicine, White, D. N., ed., Plenum Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Woodward, B., and Allen, A.J. The importance of calibration in medical ultrasonics, Brit. J. Radiol. 47, 707–711, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Transducer

  1. Haran, E., Visualization and measurement of ultrasonic wavefronts Proc. IEEE 67, 454–466, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Erdmann, W. A., Sanghbi, N. P., Gardner, M. G., and Fry, F. J., An automated system for ultrasound transducer calibration: beam plotting and acoustical output determination Ultrasound in Medicine., White, D. N., and Lyons, E. A., ed., Plenum Press, New York, 1978, 490–492.Google Scholar
  3. Reid, J. M., Self-reciprocity calibration of echo-ranging transducers, J. Acoust Soc. Am. 55 (4), 862–868, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hill, C. R., Calibration of ultrasonic beams for bio-medical applications, Phys. Med. Biol. 15, 241–248, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Intensity

  1. Fry, F. J., Biological effects of ultrasound—A review, Proc. IEEE 67, 604–619, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carson, P. L., Fischella, P. R., and Oughton T. V., Ultrasonic power and intensities produced by diagnostic ultrasound equipment, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 3, 341–350, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kossoff, G., On the measurement and specification of acoustic output generated by pulsed ultrasonic diagnostic equipment J. Clin. Ultrasound 6, 303–309, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Torr, G. R., and Watmough, D. J., A constant-flow calorimeter for the measurement of acoustic power at megahertz frequencies, Phys. Med. Biol. 22, 444–450, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kossoff, G., The measurement of peak acoustic intensity generated by pulsed ultrasonic equipment (transducer), Ultrasonics 7, 249–251, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beam Pattern

  1. Goodsitt, M. M., Banjavic, R. A., Zagzebski, J. A., and Madsen, E. L., An automated ultrasound transducer beam profiling system, Radiology 132, 220–222, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Foster, F. S., and Hunt, J. W., The focusing of ultrasound beams through human tissue, Third International Symposium on Ultrasonic Imaging and Tissue Characterization, June 5–7, 1978, NBS Gaithesburg, Md., Program and Abstracts: 87–94.Google Scholar

Receiver

  1. Pickering, N., A practical standard reflector using carbon tetrachloride, in Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 3B, White, D. N., and Brown, R.E., ed., Plenum Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Smith, S., Lopez, H., and Stewart, H., Methods and results of dynamic range testing of diagnostic ultrasonic instrumentation, SPIE Vol. 127, Optical Instrumentation in Medicine VI, Society of Photo Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Bellingham, Washington, 1977, 245–252.Google Scholar
  3. Standard Specification of Echoscope Sensitivity and Noise Level, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, AIUM Executive Secretary, Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190.Google Scholar
  4. Goldstein, A., A routine procedure for monitoring ultrasound equipment, J. Clin. Ultrasound 3, 267–271, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Digital Scan Converter

  1. Ophir, J., and Maklad, N. F., Digital scan converters in diagnostic ultrasound imaging, Proc. IEEE 67, 654–664, 1979. This paper incorrectly references prior work on digital scan converters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Goldstein, A., Ophir, J., and Templeton, A. W., Research in ultrasound image generation: A computerized ultrasound processing, acquisition, and display (CUPAD) system, Acoustic Holography, 6, 57–70 1975.Google Scholar

B-Mode Registration

  1. Hall, A. J., and Fleming, J. E. E., A method for checking the registration of contact B-scanners, J. Clin. Ultrasound 3, 51–54, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Mountford, R. A., and Halliwell, M., Physical sources of registration errors in pulse-echo ultrasonic systems. Part II. Beam deformation, deviation and divergence, Med. Biol. Eng. 11, 33–38, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fleming, J. E., and Hall, A. J., Two dimensional compound scanning- effects of maladjustment and calibration, Ultrasonics 6, 160–166, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Routine Performance Tests Test Objects

  1. Jones, J. P., AIUM standardization in ophthalmology, in Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 3B White, D. N., and Brown, R. E., eds., Plenum Press, 1977, 2163–2166.Google Scholar
  2. Brendel, K., Filipcynski, L. S., Gerstner, R., Hill, C. R., Kossoff, G., Quentin G., Reid, J. M., Saneyoshi, J., Somer, J. C., Tchevnenko, A. A., and Wells, P. N. T., Methods of measuring the performance of ultrasonic pulse-echo diagnostic equipment, Ultrasound Med Biol. 2, 343–350, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson, P. L., and Oughton, T. V., Performance measurements on a real time ultrasound scanner, Proc. 29th AGEMB, Boston, MA, November 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Carson, P. L., Rapid evaluation of many pulse echo system characteristics by use of a triggered pulse burst generator with exponential decay J. Clin. Ultrasound 4, 259–263, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lypacenica, G., and Hill, C. R., Choice of standard target for medical pulse-echo equipment evaluation Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1, 287–289, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Robinson, D. E., and Kossoff, G., Performance tests of ultrasonic echoscopes for medical diagnosis (standards), Radiology 104 123–132, July 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Christie, B. A., and Mallard, J. R., Performance evaluation of ultrasonic scanners (standardization) Brit. J. Radiol. 43, 226, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hasegawa, T., and Yosioka, K, Acoustic-radiation force on a solid elastic sphere, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 46, 1139–1143, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson, P. L., CRP quality control workshop materials, Carson, P. L., Dept. of Radiology, Univ. of Colorado Medical Center, 4200’E. 9th Ave., Denver, CO 80220).Google Scholar

Tissue Equivalent Phantoms

  1. Till, P., and Ossinig, K. C., First experiences with a new solid tissue model for the standardization of A- and B-scan instruments used in tissue diagnosis in Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 3B White, D. N., and Brown, R. E., eds., Plenum, 1977, 2167–2174.Google Scholar
  2. Madsen, E., Zagzebski, J., Banjavic, R., and Jutila, R., Tissue mimicking material for diagnostic ultrasound, Med. Phys. 5, 391–394, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Madsen, E., Zagzebski, J., Banjavic, R., and Burlew, M., Further developments in soft-tissue-equivalent, gelatin-based materials, paper presented at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 1978.Google Scholar
  4. Nigam, A. K., Standard Phantom Object for Measurements of Gray Scale and Dynamic Range of Ultrasound Equipment, in Acoustical Holography, Vol. 6, Booth, N., ed., Plenum Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Edmonds, P. D., Aryes, Z., Parkinson, D. B., Filley, R. A., and Busey, H., A human abdominal tissue phantom, Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization—II, Linzer, M. L., ed., NBS Special Publication, 323–326.Google Scholar
  6. Eggleton, R. C., and Whitcomb, J. A., Tissue simulators for diagnostic ultrasound in Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization—II Linzer, M. L. ed., NBS Spec. Publ, 327–336.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, P. L., Shabason, L., Dick, D. E., and Clayman, W., Tissue equivalent test objects for comparison of ultrasound transmission tomography by reconstruction and pulse-echo ultrasound imaging, in Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization—II, Linzer, M. L., NBS Spec. Pub., 337–342.Google Scholar

Aium 100-Mm Test Object

  1. Christensen, S. L., and Carson, P. L., Performance survey of ultrasound instrumentation and feasibility of routine monitoring, Radiology 122, 449–454, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Erikson, K. R., Carson, P. L., and Stewart, H. F., Field evaluation of the AIUM 100mm Test Object AIUM Standards Committee, Ultrasound in Medicine, II, White, D. N., and Barnes, R. W., Plenum Press, 1976, pp. 445–451.Google Scholar
  3. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Standard 100mm Test Object Including Recommended Procedures for Its Use, Reflections 1, 74–91, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Carson, P. L., Leung, S. S., Hendee, W. R., Holmes, J. H., Lindsey, L. F., A sealed test tank for echoscope performance evaluation, J. Clin. Ultrasound 1, 208–218, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The HUMANA Press Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Goldstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Henry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations