Transducer performance parameters and their influence on biometric results

  • W. Haigis
  • W. Buschmann
Part of the Documenta Ophthalmologica Proceedings Series book series (DOPS, volume 53)

Summary

Eleven transducers with working frequencies ranging from 5.1-11.9 MHz and bandwidths from 1.5 to 6.2 MHz were used on 3 commercial ultrasonic instruments with different operational principles to measure the length of a well defined phantom. In all cases, the true length could be reproduced with no dependency on frequency. The accuracy of biometric length determination was best in the instrument using high frequency counters and worse, when results were derived from the digitized video echogram. The dominant influence on biometric results is given by system sensitivity rather than transducer working frequency. From clinical measurements, a minimum transducer tone-burst sensitivity of ≈ −25 dB or ≈ 50 dB pulsemode sensitivity respectively has to be postulated in order to obtain acceptable biometric results.

Keywords

Ultrasonic Transducer System Sensitivity Biometric Data International Electrotechnical Commission Nominal Frequency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AIUM, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 1982. Standard methods for testing single-element pulse-echo ultrasonic transducers, Interim Standard, J. Ultrasound Med. 7, (Suppl. 1).Google Scholar
  2. Haigis W, Buschmann W. 1985. Echo reference standards in ophthalmic ultrasonography, Ultrasound Med Biol 11: 149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Haigis W. 1985, Performance measurements in ophthalmic ultrasonography with respect to IEC-recommendations. In: R W Gill M J Dadd (eds) WFUMB ’85, Proc. of the 4th Meet, of the World Fed. for Ultras, in Med. & Biol., Pergamon Press, Sidney, New York, p. 433.Google Scholar
  4. Haigis W, Buschmann W. 1986. Frequenzmessungen an Schallköpfen zur Qualitätssicherung in der ophthalmologischen Ultraschalldia-gnostik. In: Ultraschalldiagnostik 85, O Schnaars (eds) G. Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, p. 776.Google Scholar
  5. Haigis W. 1987. Computer-assisted clinical A-mode analysis in ophthalmic ultrasonography. In: Ophthalmie echography, KC Ossoinig (ed) Doc. Ophth. Proc. Ser. 48, Martinus Nijhoff / Dr. W. Junk Publ., Dordrecht, p. 187.Google Scholar
  6. Haigis W, Buschmann W. 1988. Clinical performance measurements on ultrasonic transducers. In: Ultrasonography in Ophthalmology, Proc. of the SIDUO XI Symp., Capri, Italy, April 27—May 1, 1986, JM Thijssen et al. (eds) Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Haigis W. 1988 (to be published). IEC, International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC Report,. 1986. Methods of measuring the performance of ultrasonic pulse-echo diagnostic equipment, Publication 854, Bureau Central de la Commission Electro technique Internationale; 3, rue de Varembe, Geneve, Suisse.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Haigis
    • 1
  • W. Buschmann
    • 1
  1. 1.University Eye HospitalWuerzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations