Ultrasound handheld devices – potential problems and possible solutions

Most ultrasound (US) manufacturers offer handheld devices in addition to their more traditional larger mid- and high-end machines. The price of handheld devices is generally lower, but they may lack features like elastography, contrast agent imaging and biopsy guidance. An advantage of handheld US devices is that due to their small size they fit into the pockets of a physician’s lab coat. The smallest handheld devices are composed of a transducer with an USB connection to a tablet or a smartphone. This means that handheld devices could be available to the physician at all times while on duty. But is this set-up sufficient for diagnostic use [1]?

• References

• 1 Dietrich CF et al. Birth of Echoscopy - the EFSUMB Point of View. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34 (1) 92
• 2 Yamazaki A, Liu P, Cheng WC, Badano A. Image quality characteristics of handheld display devices for medical imaging. PLoS One 2013; 8 (11) e79243
• 3 Johns S, Poh AC, Lim TC, Chan EH, Chong IR. The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. J Digit Imaging 2012; 25: 628-634
• 4 Schlechtweg PM, Kammerer FJ, Seuss H, Uder M, Hammon M. Mobile Image Interpretation: Diagnostic Performance of CT Exams Displayed on a Tablet Computer in Detecting Abdominopelvic Hemorrhage. J Digit Imaging 2016; 29: 183-188
• 5 Tadinada A, Mahdian M, Sheth S, Chandhoke TK, Gopalakrishna A, Potluri A, Yadav S. The reliability of tablet computers in depicting maxillofacial radiographic landmarks. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 175-180
• 6 Hammon M, Schlechtweg PM, Schulz-Wendtland R, Uder M, Schwab SA. iPads in Breast Imaging - A Phantom Study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74 (2) 152-156
• 7 Zwart CM, He M, Wu T, Demaerschalk BM, Mitchell JR, Hara AK. Selection and pilot implementation of a mobile image viewer: a case study.
• 8 Caffery LJ, Armfield NR, Smith AC. Radiological interpretation of images displayed on tablet computers: a systematic review. Br J Radiol 2015; 88 (1050) 20150191
• 9 Haragan AF, Hulsey TC, Hawk AF, Newman RB, Chang EY. Diagnostic accuracy of fundal height and handheld ultrasound-measured abdominal circumference to screen for fetal growth abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (6) 820.e1-8
• 10 Becker DM, Tafoya CA, Becker SL, Kruger GH, Tafoya MJ, Becker TK. The use of portable ultrasound devices in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. Trop Med Int Health 2016; 21 (3) 294-311
• 11 Stock KF, Klein B, Steubl D, Lersch C, Heemann U, Wagenpfeil S, Eyer F, Clevert DA. Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40 (7) 2861-2866
• 12 Ojeda JC, Colbert JA, Lin X, McMahon GT, Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Wu J, Katz JT, Yialamas MA. Pocket-sized ultrasound as an aid to physical diagnosis for internal medicine residents: a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30 (2) 199-206
• 13 Konge L, Albrecht-Beste E, Nielsen MB. Virtual-reality simulation-based training in ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med 2014; 35 (2) 95-97
• 14 Østergaard ML, Ewertsen C, Konge L, Albrecht-Beste E, Bachmann Nielsen M. Simulation-Based Abdominal Ultrasound Training - A Systematic Review. Ultraschall in Med 2016; Feb 16 (Epub ahead of print)
• 15 Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Badea R, Dudea S, Prosch H, Cerezo E, Nuernberg D, Serra AL, Sidhu PS, Radzina M, Piscaglia F, Bachmann Nielsen M, Calliada F, Gilja OH. EFSUMB statement on medical student education in ultrasound [short version]. Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37 (1) 100-102
• 16 Konge L, Albrecht-Beste E, Bachmann Nielsen M. Ultrasound in Pre-Graduate Medical Education. Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 213-215