MP63-01 FEASIBILITY OF NEXT GENERATION NON-LINEAR BEAMFORMING ULTRASOUND METHODS TO CHARACTERIZE AND SIZE KIDNEY STONES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology IV1 Apr 2018MP63-01 FEASIBILITY OF NEXT GENERATION NON-LINEAR BEAMFORMING ULTRASOUND METHODS TO CHARACTERIZE AND SIZE KIDNEY STONES Ryan Hsi, Siegfried Schlunk, Jaime Tierney, Rebecca Jones, Mark George, Pranav Karve, Ravindra Duddu, and Brett Byram Ryan HsiRyan Hsi More articles by this author , Siegfried SchlunkSiegfried Schlunk More articles by this author , Jaime TierneyJaime Tierney More articles by this author , Rebecca JonesRebecca Jones More articles by this author , Mark GeorgeMark George More articles by this author , Pranav KarvePranav Karve More articles by this author , Ravindra DudduRavindra Duddu More articles by this author , and Brett ByramBrett Byram More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2024AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Advanced ultrasound beamforming methods for imaging kidney stones may help address the sensitivity and size overestimation problems with standard B-mode ultrasound. The study objective was to demonstrate feasibility of advanced ultrasound beamforming methods including plane wave synthetic focusing (PWSF), short-lag spatial coherence (SLSC) imaging, mid-lag spatial coherence (MLSC) imaging with incoherent compounding, and aperture domain model image reconstruction (ADMIRE). METHODS The ultrasound techniques were evaluated using a research-based ultrasound system applied to an in vitro kidney stone model (n=12, 4 and 8cm depths) and in a pilot study of human stone formers (n=5). Stone diameter sizing, shadow contrast, and stone contrast were compared among the different techniques and to B-mode. CT measurements were used to determine true stone size in the pilot study. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the differences among group means, and t-test when comparing to B-mode, with p<0.05 considered significant. RESULTS All stones were detectable with each method. In the in vitro study, MLSC performed best compared to B-mode for mean stone contrast (31.7 dB vs 14.7 dB, p<0.0025). On average, B-mode sizing error ± SD was >1mm (1.2±1.1 mm), while those for PWSF, ADMIRE, and MLSC were <1mm (-0.3±2.9mm, 0.6±0.8, 0.8±0.8, respectively). The mean posterior stone shadow contrast was highest with ADMIRE overall (ptrend=0.008), and when comparing between ADMIRE and B-mode (8.0 dB vs 2.1 dB, respectively; p=0.0131). In the pilot clinical study (Figure), mean stone contrast was best with ADMIRE and MLSC than with B mode (28.5 dB and 27.8 dB vs 18.1dB, respectively; ptrend=0.002). Mean sizing error was best with ADMIRE (+1.2mm), however there was no statistically significant difference when compared with B mode (+2.7mm). CONCLUSIONS The detection and sizing of stones are feasible with advanced beamforming methods with ultrasound. ADMIRE and MLSC hold promise for improving stone contrast, shadow contrast, and reducing sizing error. Future work will include imaging a broader population of human stone formers. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e840-e841 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Ryan Hsi More articles by this author Siegfried Schlunk More articles by this author Jaime Tierney More articles by this author Rebecca Jones More articles by this author Mark George More articles by this author Pranav Karve More articles by this author Ravindra Duddu More articles by this author Brett Byram More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...