A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics

被引:5
|
作者
Park, Kristen E. [1 ]
Mehta, Preeya [1 ]
Tran, Charlene [2 ]
Parikh, Alomi O. [2 ]
Zhou, Qifa [2 ,3 ]
Zhang-Nunes, Sandy [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] USC, Keck Sch Med, Los Angeles, CA USA
[2] USC, USC Roski Eye Inst, Keck Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Los Angeles, CA USA
[3] Univ Southern Calif, Viterbi Sch Engn, Dept Biomed Engn, Los Angeles, CA USA
[4] USC, USC Roski Eye Inst, Keck Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Los Angeles, CA 90033 USA
关键词
Handheld ultrasound; point-of-care ultrasound; ultrasound-guided filler injection; Butterfly IQ+; Clarius; Vscan Air; Lumify; NEW-GENERATION;
D O I
10.1177/1742271X231166895
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be best suited for ophthalmic and facial aesthetic applications. This study compares five popular handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices to help guide clinicians in choosing the device best suited for their needs. Methods: We compared five point-of-care ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+ (Butterfly, Burlington, MA), L15 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), L20 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Lumify (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Vscan Air (GE, Boston, MA). Three ophthalmologists obtained the following views on three volunteers: eight arteries, four ocular and periocular structures and areas of filler injections. The image quality of each view was graded on a four-point Likert-type scale. In addition, graders filled out a survey. The data were analysed using analysis of variance tests with the significance level set to p < 0.05. Results: In terms of overall image quality, the L20 received the highest mean rating, followed by the L15, Vscan Air, Butterfly IQ+ and the Lumify (p < 0.05). With further stratification for structure type, the L20 was ranked first for filler, artery and orbital imaging (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The L20 received the highest image quality rankings. While image quality is an important aspect of point-of-care ultrasound device selection, other factors such as cost, wireless capabilities, range of presets and battery life should also be considered.
引用
收藏
页码:28 / 35
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users
    Le, Minh-Phuong T.
    Voigt, Lara
    Nathanson, Robert
    Maw, Anna M.
    Johnson, Gordon
    Dancel, Ria
    Mathews, Benji
    Moreira, Alvaro
    Sauthoff, Harald
    Gelabert, Christopher
    Kurian, Linda M.
    Dumovich, Jenna
    Proud, Kevin C.
    Solis-McCarthy, Jessica
    Candotti, Carolina
    Dayton, Christopher
    Arena, Alexander
    Boesch, Brandon
    Flores, Saul
    Foster, Mark T.
    Villalobos, Nicholas
    Wong, Tanping
    Ortiz-Jaimes, Gabriel
    Mader, Michael
    Sisson, Craig
    Soni, Nilam J.
    ULTRASOUND JOURNAL, 2022, 14 (01):
  • [2] Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users
    Minh-Phuong T. Le
    Lara Voigt
    Robert Nathanson
    Anna M. Maw
    Gordon Johnson
    Ria Dancel
    Benji Mathews
    Alvaro Moreira
    Harald Sauthoff
    Christopher Gelabert
    Linda M. Kurian
    Jenna Dumovich
    Kevin C. Proud
    Jessica Solis-McCarthy
    Carolina Candotti
    Christopher Dayton
    Alexander Arena
    Brandon Boesch
    Saul Flores
    Mark T. Foster
    Nicholas Villalobos
    Tanping Wong
    Gabriel Ortiz-Jaimes
    Michael Mader
    Craig Sisson
    Nilam J. Soni
    The Ultrasound Journal, 14
  • [3] Prevalence of point-of-care ultrasound devices in Canada RESPONSE
    Mungmunpunti-Pantip, Rujittika
    Wiwanitkit, Viroj
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF RURAL MEDICINE, 2022, 27 (01) : 37 - 37
  • [4] Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use by Primary Care Physicians
    Niblock, Franklin
    Byun, Hoon
    Jabbarpour, Yalda
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2021, 34 (04) : 859 - 860
  • [5] Perioperative Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use by Anesthesiologists
    Naji, Abdullah
    Chappidi, Monica
    Ahmed, Abdelwahab
    Monga, Aaron
    Sanders, Joseph
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 13 (05)
  • [6] Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound to Assess CKD
    Reisinger, Nathaniel
    Koratala, Abhilash
    Goral, Simin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES, 2021, 77 (01)
  • [7] Perioperative Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use by Anesthesiologists
    Naji, Abdullah
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2022, 134 : 998 - 999
  • [8] Prehospital point-of-care ultrasound use by the military
    Ward, David I.
    EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, 2007, 19 (03) : 282 - 282
  • [9] Facial Artery Pseudoaneurysm in a Child Diagnosed With Point-of-Care Ultrasound
    Abulfaraj, Maher M.
    Deanehan, J. Kate
    PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2019, 35 (10) : 733 - 735
  • [10] Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study
    Perez-Sanchez, Ariadna
    Johnson, Gordon
    Pucks, Neysan
    Soni, Riya N.
    Lund, Terry J. S.
    Andrade, Anthony J.
    Le, Minh-Phuong T.
    Solis-McCarthy, Jessica
    Wong, Tanping
    Ashraf, Arsal
    Kumar, Andre D.
    Banauch, Gisela I.
    Verner, James R.
    Sodhi, Amik
    Thomas, Meghan K.
    Lopresti, Charles
    Schmitz, Hannah
    Koratala, Abhilash
    Hunninghake, John
    Manninen, Erik
    Candotti, Carolina
    Minami, Taro
    Mathews, Benji K.
    Bandak, Ghassan
    Sauthoff, Harald
    Mayo-Malasky, Henry
    Cho, Joel
    Villalobos, Nick
    Proud, Kevin C.
    Boesch, Brandon
    Fenton Portillo, Federico
    Reierson, Kreegan
    Malik, Manpreet
    Abbas, Firas
    Johnson, Tim
    Haro, Elizabeth K.
    Mader, Michael J.
    Mayo, Paul
    Franco-Sadud, Ricardo
    Soni, Nilam J.
    ULTRASOUND JOURNAL, 2024, 16 (01):