You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology III1 Apr 2015MP17-04 UROLOGIC IMAGING QUALITY USING A PORTABLE ULTRASOUND WITH REGARD TO THE OPERATOR AND THE DEVICE Arnon Lavi, Sharon Tzemach, Alon Masiach, Genady Zelichenko, Michael Gross, Leonid Cherbinsky, David Giser, Rafi Shoshana, Ziv Neeman, and Michael Cohen Arnon LaviArnon Lavi More articles by this author , Sharon TzemachSharon Tzemach More articles by this author , Alon MasiachAlon Masiach More articles by this author , Genady ZelichenkoGenady Zelichenko More articles by this author , Michael GrossMichael Gross More articles by this author , Leonid CherbinskyLeonid Cherbinsky More articles by this author , David GiserDavid Giser More articles by this author , Rafi ShoshanaRafi Shoshana More articles by this author , Ziv NeemanZiv Neeman More articles by this author , and Michael CohenMichael Cohen More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.846AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The use of urologist preformed sonography is becoming an integral part of the daily urologic practice. This trend has been supported by the incorporation of mandatory sonographic training in urology residency syllabus by the American urology association (AUA). Our objective was to evaluate in a quantitative and qualitative manner the clinical performance and utility of a portable ultrasound (V-US) device (VSCAN© by GE) with regard to the operator and the device characteristics. METHODS After informed consent, 35 patients admitted in our ward underwent 3 consecutive US studies: - V-US study by a urologist - V-US study by a sonography technician - Standard US (GE Volusion 730/Logic Q8)(S-US) study by a sonography technician Each study included the common parameters of a standard urologic sonographic evaluation (see table 1). In an attempt to evaluate the operator and the device contribution to the performance, a comparison was done between urologist V-US and technician V-US (operator), technician V-US and S-US (device) and urologist V-US and technician S-US. A preset clinically expectable deviation of the quantitative parameters was defined for each parameter by the investigators and these were analyzed using a t-test to determine significance of deviation. Ordinal parameters were analyzed using the Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS No significant differences were observed in the performance and outcome (except for number of renal cysts identified) in all the comparisons made, regardless of the operator or the device as well as when comparing the urologist using V-US and the technician using S-US (see table 1). CONCLUSIONS A urologist performed study using the portable US seems valid and equivalent to technician operated standard US in almost all the parameters examined. Detection of small renal lesions may be less satisfactory. With the aforementioned trend of the US becoming the urologist's “stethoscope”, it seems that routine use of a urologist operated portable US may assist patient management in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. This goal should be promoted in consideration of the limitations of the urologist as a sonographist and related medico-legal aspects. Table 1. Summary of results Parameter n Urologist portable US (mean) Technician portable US (mean) Technician standard US (mean) Preset permitted difference between studies (for either comparisons) p-value operator comparison p-value device comparison p-value urologist V-US vs. technician S-US comparison Kappa coefficient for operator comparison Kappa coefficient for device comparison Kappa coefficient for urologist V-US vs. technician S-US comparison Kidney length (cm) 69 10.5 11 11.8 1.5 0.26 0.73 0.72 - - - Subjective hydronephrosis evaluation (none, mild, moderate, severe) 69 - - - - - - - 0.63 (substantial) 0.79 (substantial) 0.65 (substantial) Renal pelvis length (when dilated, mm) 13 15.6 15.3 13.6 3 0.86 0.86 0.21 - - - Number of renal cysts 13 - - - - - - - 0.54 (moderate) 0.66 (substantial) 0.1 (slight) Renal cyst diameter (mm) 9 37.7 32.7 26.8 3 0.12 0.19 0.9 - - - Post void residual (cc) 34 24.9 23.7 28.9 10 0.79 0.37 0.77 - - - Prostate volume (cc) 25 39.3 35.4 36.3 12 0.12 0.36 0.06 - - - © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e177 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Arnon Lavi More articles by this author Sharon Tzemach More articles by this author Alon Masiach More articles by this author Genady Zelichenko More articles by this author Michael Gross More articles by this author Leonid Cherbinsky More articles by this author David Giser More articles by this author Rafi Shoshana More articles by this author Ziv Neeman More articles by this author Michael Cohen More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...