Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Evaluating Sonographers’ Awareness of Artifacts in Renal Ultrasound Scans

Author(s): Abdullah F. Alshamrani*, Faisal A. Alrehily, Fahad H. Alhazmi, Ammar M. Alharbi and Samer O. Almohammadi

Volume 19, Issue 14, 2023

Published on: 08 March, 2023

Article ID: e210223213859 Pages: 6

DOI: 10.2174/1573405619666230221143841

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: A routine ultrasound scan is used to assess a variety of renal pathological cases. Sonographers face a variety of challenges that may affect their interpretation. Understanding normal organ shapes, human anatomy, physical concepts, and artifacts is required for accurate diagnosis. Sonographers must understand how artifacts appear in ultrasound images in order to reduce errors and improve diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to assess sonographers' awareness and knowledge of artifacts in renal ultrasound scans.

Methods: Participants in this cross-sectional study were asked to complete a survey containing different types of common artifacts in renal system ultrasound scans. An online questionnaire survey was used to collect the data. The questionnaire targeted radiologists, radiologic technologists, and intern students in Madinah hospitals in the ultrasound department.

Results: The total number of participants was 99, with 9.1% being radiologists, 31.3% being radiology technologists, 6.1% being senior specialists, and 53.5% being intern students. There was a significant difference in the participants’ knowledge of ultrasound artifacts in the renal system with the total selection of the right artifact in senior specialists at 73% and intern students 45%. There was a direct relationship between age and years of experience in distinguishing artifacts in the renal system scan. A category of participants with the highest age and experience got 92% of the correct selection of artifacts.

Conclusion: The study concluded that intern students and radiology technologists have limited knowledge of ultrasound scan artifacts, whereas senior specialists and radiologists have a high level of awareness of the artifacts.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Newman PG, Rozycki GS. The history of ultrasound. Surg Clin North Am 1998; 78(2): 179-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70308-X] [PMID: 9602842]
[2]
Gennisson JL, Deffieux T, Fink M, Tanter M. Ultrasound elastography: Principles and techniques. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94(5): 487-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2013.01.022] [PMID: 23619292]
[3]
Wells PN. Physics and bioeffects. In: McGahan JP, Goldberg BB, Eds. Diagnostic ultrasound, A logical approach. Philadelphia: Lppincott-Raven Publishers 1998; pp. 19-1.
[4]
Debdas AK. Scientific Basis of Ultrasonography. In: Malhotra N, Shah PK, Kumar P, Acharya P, Panchal S, Malhotra J, Eds. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. New Delhi: JP Medical Ltd 2014; pp. 12-3.
[5]
Hangiandreou NJ. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Topics in US: B-mode US: Basic concepts and new technology. Radiographics 2003; 23(4): 1019-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.234035034] [PMID: 12853678]
[6]
Ward B, Baker AC, Humphrey VF. Nonlinear propagation applied to the improvement of resolution in diagnostic medical ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 101(1): 143-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.417977] [PMID: 9000731]
[7]
Niyyar VD, O’Neill WC. Point-of-care ultrasound in the practice of nephrology. Kidney Int 2018; 93(5): 1052-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2017.11.032] [PMID: 29477241]
[8]
Wilson DA. Ultrasonic scanning of the kidneys. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1981; 11(4): 367-76.
[PMID: 7023350]
[9]
Boezaart AP, Ihnatsenka B. Ultrasound: Basic understanding and learning the language. Int J Shoulder Surg 2010; 4(3): 55-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.76960] [PMID: 21472065]
[10]
Raheem A. Effects of artifacts on the diagnosis of ultrasound image. Med-Leg Update 2021; 21(4): 336-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.37506/mlu.v21i4.3152]
[11]
Baad M, Lu ZF, Reiser I, Paushter D. Clinical significance of US artifacts. Radiographics 2017; 37(5): 1408-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160175] [PMID: 28777700]
[12]
Kirberger RM. Imaging artifacts in diagnostic ultrasound—a review. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1995; 36(4): 297-306.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.1995.tb00266.x]
[13]
Tay PC, Acton ST, Hossack JA. A wavelet thresholding method to reduce ultrasound artifacts. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2011; 35(1): 42-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2010.09.003] [PMID: 20934848]
[14]
Lee RK, Ho SS, Griffith JF. Ultrasound Imaging. In: Peh WC, Ed. Pitfalls in Diagnostic Radiology. Berlin: Springer 2015; pp. 21-3.
[15]
Hirsch MS, Palavecino T, León B. Color Doppler twinkling artifact: A misunderstood and useful sign. Rev Chil Radiol 2011; 17: 82-4.
[16]
Dillman JR, Kappil M, Weadock WJ, et al. Sonographic twinkling artifact for renal calculus detection: Correlation with CT. Radiology 2011; 259(3): 911-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102128] [PMID: 21460031]
[17]
Abu-Zidan F, Hefny A, Corr P. Clinical ultrasound physics. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2011; 4(4): 501-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-2700.86646] [PMID: 22090745]
[18]
Hindi A, Peterson C, Barr RG. Artifacts in diagnostic ultrasound. Reports in Medical Imaging 2013; 6: 29-48.
[19]
Rahmouni A, Bargoin R, Herment A, Bargoin N, Vasile N. Color Doppler twinkling artifact in hyperechoic regions. Radiology 1996; 199(1): 269-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.199.1.8633158] [PMID: 8633158]
[20]
Quien MM, Saric M. Ultrasound imaging artifacts: How to recognize them and how to avoid them. Echocardiography 2018; 35(9): 1388-401.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/echo.14116] [PMID: 30079966]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy