Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Time savings and clinical accuracy of a new miniature ultrasound device was investigated utilizing comparison with conventional high-end ultrasound instruments. Our objective was to determine appropriate usage and limitations of this diagnostic tool in internal medicine.

Methods

We investigated 28 patients from the internal-medicine department. Patients were examined with the Acuson P10 portable device and a Sonoline Antares instrument in a cross-over design. All investigations were carried out at the bedside; the results were entered on a standardized report form. The time for the ultrasound examination (transfer time, setting up and disassembly, switching on and off, and complete investigation time) was recorded separately.

Results

Mean time for overall examination per patient with the portable ultrasound device was shorter (25.0 ± 4.5 min) than with the high-end machine (29.4 ± 4.4 min; p < 0.001). When measuring the size of liver, spleen, and kidneys, the values obtained differed significantly between portable device and the high-end instrument. In our study, we identified 113 pathological ultrasound findings with the high-end ultrasound machine, while 82 pathological findings (73%) were concordantly detected with the portable ultrasound device. The main diagnostic strengths of the portable device were in the detection of ascites (sensitivity 80%), diagnosis of fatty liver, and identification of severe parenchymal liver damage.

Conclusions

The clinical utility of portable ultrasound machines is limited. There will be clinical roles for distinct clinical questions such as detection of ascites or pleural effusion when used by experienced examiners. However, sensitivity in detecting multiple pathologies is not comparable to high-end ultrasound machines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fischer T, Filimonow S, Petersein J, et al. (2002) Ultrasound at the bedside: does a portable ultrasound device save time? Ultraschall Med 23(5):311–314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vourvouri EC, Poldermans D, Schinkel AFL, et al. (2001) Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening using a hand-held ultrasound device. “A pilot study”. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 22(4):352–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ryan SM, Smith E, Sidhu PS (2002) Comparison of the SonoSite and Acuson 128/XP10 ultrasound machines in the ‘bed-side’ assessment of the post liver transplant patient. Eur J Ultrasound 15(1–2):37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Oschatz E, Prosch H, Schober E, Mostbeck G (2004) Evaluation of a portable ultrasound device immediately after spiral computed tomography. Ultraschall Med 25(6):433–437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Seitz K, Vasilakis D, Ziegler M (2003) Efficiency of a portable B-scan ultrasound device in comparison to a high-end machine in abdominal ultrasound. Results of a pilot study. Ultraschall Med 24(2):96–100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ziegler CM, Seitz K, Leicht-Biener U, Mauch M (2004) Detection of therapeutically relevant diagnoses made by sonography of the upper abdomen: portable versus high-end sonographic units—a prospective study. Ultraschall Med 25(6):428–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pieckenpack A, Klebl F, Dorenbeck U, et al. (2002) Evaluation of a new, portable ultrasound system in routine clinical use. Rofo 174(3):349–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaulieu Y (2007) Bedside echocardiography in the assessment of the critically ill. Crit Care Med 35(5 Suppl):S235–S249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beaulieu Y, Marik PE (2005) Bedside ultrasonography in the ICU: part 2. Chest 128(3):1766–1781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Price DD, Wilson SR, Murphy TG (2000) Trauma ultrasound feasibility during helicopter transport. Air Med J 19(4):144–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Busch M (2006) Portable ultrasound in pre-hospital emergencies: a feasibility study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 50(6):754–758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lapostolle F, Petrovic T, Lenoir G, et al. (2006) Usefulness of hand-held ultrasound devices in out-of-hospital diagnosis performed by emergency physicians. Am J Emerg Med 24(2):237–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Judmaier G, Seitz K (2004) How reliable is sonography of the upper abdomen with portable sonographic units? What does the future hold? Ultraschall Med 25(6):408–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Tom Fitzgerald, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, for the critical review and proof-reading of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Nephrologie, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bavaria, Germany

    Konrad Friedrich Stock, Bettina Klein, Dominik Steubl & Uwe Heemann

  2. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Christian Lersch

  3. Institut für medizinische Statistik und Epidemiologie, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Stefan Wagenpfeil

  4. Abteilung für Toxikologie, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Florian Eyer

  5. Institut für Radiologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Dir-Andre Clevert

Authors
  1. Konrad Friedrich Stock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bettina Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dominik Steubl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Lersch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Uwe Heemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefan Wagenpfeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Florian Eyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dir-Andre Clevert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Steubl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stock, K.F., Klein, B., Steubl, D. et al. Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination. Abdom Imaging 40, 2861–2866 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0406-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0406-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation