4.6 Article

Assessment of the accuracy of an ultrasound elastography liver scanning system using a PVA-cryogel phantom with optimal acoustic and mechanical properties

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 19, 页码 5965-5983

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/19/022

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accuracy of a transient elastography liver-scanning ultrasound system was assessed using a novel application of PVA-cryogel as a tissue-mimicking material with acoustic and shear elasticity properties optimized to best represent those of liver tissue. Although the liver-scanning system has been shown to offer a safer alternative for diagnosing liver cirrhosis through stiffness measurement, as compared to the liver needle biopsy exam, the scanner's accuracy has not been fully established. Young's elastic modulus values of 5-6 wt% PVA-cryogel phantoms, also containing glycerol and 0.3 mu m Al2O3 and 3 mu m Al2O3, were measured using a 'gold standard' mechanical testing technique and transient elastography. The mechanically measured values and acoustic velocities of the phantoms ranged between 1.6 and 16.1 kPa and 1540 and 1570 m s(-1), respectively, mimicking those observed in liver tissue. The values reported by the transient elastography system overestimated Young's elastic modulus values representative of the progressive stages of liver fibrosis by up to 32%. These results were attributed to the relative rather than absolute nature of the measurement arising from the single-point acoustic velocity calibration of the system, rendering the measurements critically dependent on the speed of sound of the sample under investigation. Given the wide range of acoustic velocities which exist in the liver, spanning healthy tissue to cirrhotic pathology, coupled with the system's assumption that the liver is approximately elastic when it is rather highly viscoelastic, care should be exercised when interpreting the results from this system in patient groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据