Contrast-Enhanced Sonography of the Liver: How to Avoid Artifacts
-
Published:2024-08-20
Issue:16
Volume:14
Page:1817
-
ISSN:2075-4418
-
Container-title:Diagnostics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Diagnostics
Author:
Naganuma Hiroko1, Ishida Hideaki2, Nagai Hiroshi3, Uno Atushi4
Affiliation:
1. Department of Gastroenterology, Yokote Municipal Hospital, Yokote 013-8602, Japan 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Akita Red Cross Hospital, Akita 010-1495, Japan 3. New Generation Imaging Laboratory, Tokyo 168-0065, Japan 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Ohmori Municipal Hospital, Yokote 013-0525, Japan
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced sonography (CEUS) is a very important diagnostic imaging tool in clinical settings. However, it is associated with possible artifacts, such as B-mode US-related artifacts. Sufficient knowledge of US physics and these artifacts is indispensable to avoid the misinterpretation of CEUS images. This review aims to explain the basic physics of CEUS and the associated artifacts and to provide some examples to avoid them. This review includes problems related to the frame rate, scanning modes, and various artifacts encountered in daily CEUS examinations. Artifacts in CEUS can be divided into two groups: (1) B-mode US-related artifacts, which form the background of the CEUS image, and (2) artifacts that are specifically related to the CEUS method. The former includes refraction, reflection, reverberation (multiple reflections), attenuation, mirror image, and range-ambiguity artifacts. In the former case, the knowledge of B-mode US is sufficient to read the displayed artifactual image. Thus, in this group, the most useful artifact avoidance strategy is to use the reference B-mode image, which allows for a simultaneous comparison between the CEUS and B-mode images. In the latter case, CEUS-specific artifacts include microbubble destruction artifacts, prolonged heterogeneous accumulation artifacts, and CEUS-related posterior echo enhancement; these require an understanding of the mechanism of their appearance in CEUS images for correct image interpretation. Thus, in this group, the most useful artifact avoidance strategy is to confirm the phenomenon’s instability by changing the examination conditions, including the frequency, depth, and other parameters.
Reference63 articles.
1. Chen, S., Qiu, Y.J., Zuo, D., Shi, S.N., Wang, W.P., and Dong, Y. (2022). Imaging features of hepatocellular carcinoma in the non-cirrhotic liver with sonazoid-enhanced contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Diagnostics, 12. 2. Can modifications of LR-M criteria improve the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS for small hepatic lesions up to 3 cm?;Huang;J. Ultrasound Med.,2023 3. Zhang, W., Yi, H., Cai, B., He, Y., Huang, S., and Zhang, Y. (2022). Feasibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in evaluating renal microvascular perfusion in pediatric patients. BMC Med. Imaging, 22. 4. Picardi, M., Giordano, C., Trastulli, F., Leone, A., Pepa, R.D., Pugliese, N., Iula, R., Cave, G.D., Rascato, M.G., and Esposito, M. (2022). Sulfur exafluoride contrast-enhanced ultrasound showing early wash-out of marked degree identifies lymphoma invasion of spleen with excellent diagnostic accuracy: A monocentric study of 260 splenic nodules. Cancers, 14. 5. Zhang, W., Yang, G., Zhang, X., and Ni, T. (2022). The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating splenic tuberculosis from splenic lymphoma. Front. Oncol., 12.
|
|