Ultrasound and Pathology

  • H. E. MeltonJr.
  • Elsa B. Cohen
Part of the Acoustical Imaging book series (ACIM, volume 9)


It seems to be a current assumption, when one considers how best to develop ultrasound to examine biological tissues, that the higher the resolution, that is, the nearer one can approach the level of resolution offered by light microscopy, the likelier one is to make significant observations about such tissues. While the ultrasonic examination of tissues at a cellular level will no doubt provide important data and observations,1/2 we feel that it is a mistake to overlook the importance of examining tissues ultra-sonically at a level of resolution generally within the range afforded by the unaided eye. The practice of anatomic pathology entails the examination of tissues both with the naked eye (grossly) and with the light microscope in order to determine presence, extent and nature of disease. In general, the presence, extent, and nature of the disease is recognized by the presence, extent, and pattern of disruption of normal structures.


Muscularis Propria Lateral Resolution Pathologic Anatomy Range Resolution Ultrasonic Imaging 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. W. Kessler, The Sonomicroscope, 1974 Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings: 735–737 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. A. Lemons and C. F. Quate, A Scanning Acoustic Microscope, 1973 Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings: 18–21 (1973)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. B. Burckhardt, Speckle in Ultrasound B-Mode Scans, IEEE Trans. Sonics and Ultrasonics, SU-25:1–6 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. E. Melton, Jr., On Improvement of Sensitivity or Reduction of Dose in Medical Ultrasonic Imaging, 1979 Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings: (In press) (1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Entrekin and H. E. Melton, Jr., Real-time Speckle Reduction in B-Mode Images, 1979 Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings: (In press) (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. C. Bamber and R. J. Dickinson, Computer Simulation of the Process of Formation of an Ultrasonic Image, Fourth International Symposium on Ultrasonic Imaging and Tissue Characterization: 105 (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. G. Abbot, “Speckle Reduction Techniques in Ultrasound B-mode Images”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. E. Melton, Jr. and F. L. Thurstone, Annular Array Design and Logarithmic Processing for Ultrasonic Imaging, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 4:1–12 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. O’Donnell, D. Bauwens, J. W. Nimbs and J. G. Miller, Integrated Ultrasonic Backscatter as an Approach to Tissue Characterization in. vivo, 1979 Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings: (In press) (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. M. Reid, Challenges and Opportunities in Ultrasound, in “Ultrasonic Tissue Characterization”, M. Linzer, ed., NBS Special Publication 453, Washington, D. C. (1976)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. E. Goans and J. H. Cantrell, Jr., Ultrasonic Characterization of Thermal Injury in Deep Burns, Third International Symposium on Ultrasonic Imaging and Tissue Characterization: 41–46 (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. C. Morson, H. J. R. Bussey and S. Samoorian, Policy of Local Excision for Early Cancer of the Colorectum, Gut 18:1045–1050 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. E. MeltonJr.
    • 1
  • Elsa B. Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyThe Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations