The Safe Use of Ultrasound in Medical Diagnosis 3Rd Edition Edited by Gail Ter Haar

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Safe Use of Ultrasound in Medical Diagnosis 3Rd Edition Edited by Gail Ter Haar The Safe Use of Ultrasound in Medical Diagnosis 3rd Edition Edited by Gail ter Haar We should like to acknowledge the support of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, and the National Physical Laboratory (UK). Without their generosity this revision would not have been possible. The British Institute of Radiology 36 Portland Place, London W1B 1AT, UK www.bir.org.uk Published in the United Kingdom by The British Institute of Radiology © 1991 The British Institute of Radiology © 2000 The British Medical Ultrasound Society & The British Institute of Radiology © 2012 The Authors This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise for commercial purposes, or altered, transformed, or built upon, without the prior written permission of the British Institute of Radiology First published 1991 (978-0-905749-28-0) Second edition 2000 (978-0-905749-42-6) Third edition 2012 (978-0-905749-78-5) British Library Cataloguing-in Publication data A cataloguing in record of the publication is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-905749-78-5 (print) ISBN 978-0-905749-79-2 (eBook) A print version of this book can be purchased from the BIR website The British Institute of Radiology has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third- party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate All opinions expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and not the publishers. The publishers have taken the utmost care to ensure that the information and data contained in this publication are as accurate as possible at the time of going to press. Nevertheless the publishers cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions or misrepresentations howsoever caused. All liability for loss, disappointment or damage caused by reliance on the information contained in this publication or the negligence of the publishers is hereby excluded Contents Contributors iv Preface v Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Gail ter Haar Chapter 2 The propagation of ultrasound through tissue 4 Francis A. Duck Chapter 3 The acoustic output of diagnostic ultrasound scanners 18 Adam Shaw and Kevin Martin Chapter 4 Ultrasound-induced heating and its biological consequences 46 Charles C. Church and Stanley B. Barnett Chapter 5 Non-thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound 69 J. Brian Fowlkes Chapter 6 Radiation force and its possible biological effects 81 Hazel C. Starritt Chapter 7 Bio-effects—cells and tissues 91 Gail ter Haar Chapter 8 The safe use of contrast-enhanced diagnostic ultrasound 105 Douglas L. Miller Chapter 9 Epidemiological prenatal ultrasound studies 125 Kjell Å. Salvesen Chapter 10 Safety standards and regulations: the manufacturers’ 134 responsibilities Francis A. Duck Chapter 11 Guidelines and recommendations for the safe use of diagnostic 142 ultrasound: the user’s responsibilities Gail ter Haar Glossary 159 Index 163 iii Contributors Dr Stanley B. Barnett, MSc, PhD 11/147 Darley St. West, Mona Vale, NSW 2103, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Dr Charles C. Church, MSc, PhD National Center for Physical Acoustics, University of Mississippi, MS 38655, USA E-mail: [email protected] Professor Francis A. Duck, PhD, DSc 3 Evelyn Rd, Bath BA1 3QF, UK E-mail: [email protected] Professor J. Brian Fowlkes, PhD Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Medical Science I, 1301 Catherine, Room 3226C, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5667, USA Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, 3315 Kresge Research Building III, 204 Zina Pitcher Place, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0552, USA E-mail: [email protected] Dr Kevin Martin, BSc, PhD, FIPEM Department of Medical Physics, University Hospitals of Leicester, Infi rmary Square, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK E-mail: [email protected] Dr Douglas L. Miller, PhD Basic Radiological Sciences Division, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan SPC 5667, 3240A Medical Science Building I, 1301 Catherine Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA E-mail: [email protected] Dr Kjell Å. Salvesen, MD, PhD Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Box 117, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Mr Adam Shaw, BA, MA (Cantab) Acoustics and Ionizing Radiation Division, National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK E-mail: [email protected] Dr Hazel C. Starritt, PhD Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK E-mail: [email protected] Dr Gail ter Haar, MA, PhD, DSc Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Belmont, Sutton SM2 5NG, UK E-mail: [email protected] iv The Safe Use of Ultrasound in Medical Diagnosis Preface It is an oft observed fact that safety sessions at congresses are seldom well attended, and that the sneaky insertion of a lecture on a safety-related topic into a specialist session may be regarded by some as the opportunity for a coffee break, but the fact remains that the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound is the responsibility of the person conducting the scan. In order for appropriate judgements to be made, the practitioner must be knowledgeable about the hazards and risks involved in performing an ultrasound examination, and this book aims to provide this basic knowledge. Leading world experts in the fields of ultrasound physics, biology, standards and epidemiology have contributed chapters, written at a level that is intended to be accessible to everyone, whatever their background. Each chapter is extensively referenced to allow readers to delve deeper into a topic of interest if they so wish. Ultrasound has an unprecedented safety record, but that does not mean that we can be cavalier about its use. What is evident from the information presented in this book is that there are many gaps in our knowledge about ultrasound safety. Many of the studies on which we base our information and recommendations have been carried out in animal models whose relevance to the human is not fully understood, ultrasound exposure conditions which have little relevance to diagnostic ultrasound pulses, or on scanners that are no longer in common clinical use. While this is useful information, it must always be interpreted with care. It must be remembered that “absence of evidence of harm is not the same as absence of harm” (Salvesen et al., 2011). It is never possible to prove a negative, all we can do is to use increasingly more sensitive tests and assays. It is for these reasons that professional societies continue to support committees whose remit is to inform and educate users about the safe of ultrasound, so that ultrasound imaging can continue to enjoy its reputation as a technique whose benefits far outweigh any potential risk. The publication of the third edition of this book would not have been possible without the generous support of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, European Federation of Societies for Medical Ultrasound and the National Physical Laboratories to whom I am extremely grateful. Gail ter Haar London, November 2012 Reference Salvesen KÅ, Lees C, Abramowicz J, Brezinka C, ter Haar G, Maršál K. 2011. Safe use of Doppler ultrasound during the 11 to 13 + 6-week scan: is it possible? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 37, 625–628. v The Safe Use of Ultrasound in Medical Diagnosis Chapter 1 Introduction Gail ter Haar Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK The decision by the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology (EFSUMB) and the UK National Physical Laboratory (NPL) to sponsor the revision of this publication on the topic of the safety of diagnostic ultrasound in medical practice at this time is entirely appropriate. In England alone, over two and a half million obstetric ultrasound scans (about four for every live birth) are performed every year (Department of Health, 2012). Many of these are carried out using the new generations of ultrasound scanners, which have the potential to produce significantly higher acoustic outputs than their predecessors (see Chapter 3). Ultrasound imaging has become more sophisticated and new techniques such as tissue harmonic imaging, pulse coding and contrast-enhanced imaging are becoming more common, bringing with them not only increased diagnostic capabilities, but also uncharted waters as far as safety considerations are concerned. This is not unusual; we have a track record of safety studies lagging behind clinical applications—there are, for example, no epidemiological studies concerned with the use of pulsed Doppler techniques. This state of affairs is not to be condoned, and there is now considerable effort being put into understanding the way in which an ultrasonic beam interacts with tissue in terms of its heating potential, and the probability of inducing mechanical effects such as acoustic cavitation, so that there is more chance of predicting and preventing the occurrence of an unwanted bio-effect. During the early 1990s a change was made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA that has affected all those using ultrasound for medical diagnosis. Output levels had been set in the 1980s simply on the basis that such conditions had been in use before, with no evidence of hazard. The change allowed intensities previously reserved only for peripheral vascular studies to be used for all studies, including first- trimester scanning. No epidemiological or other evidence was then, or is now, available to support the assertion of safety at these higher exposures. The FDA change resulted in the widespread availability of high specification pulsed Doppler and Doppler imaging modes for uses in addition to cardiovascular applications, including obstetrics.
Recommended publications
  • Radiology Order Form
    RADIOLOGY ORDER FORM SCHEDULING PHONE: 206-598-7200 SCHEDULING FAX: 206-597-4004 RAD CONSULT LINE: 206-598-0101 UW RADIOLOGY RECORDS: Tel: 206-598-6206 Fax: 206-598-7690 NW RADIOLOGY RECORDS: Tel: 206-668-1748 Fax: 206-688-1398 UW Medical Center - Montlake UW Medicine Roosevelt Clinic UW Medicine Eastside Specialty Center 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195 4245 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105 3100 Northup Way, Bellevue, WA 98004 2nd Floor Radiology Front Desk: 206-598-6200 2nd Floor Radiology Front Desk: 206-598-6868 ESC Front Desk: 425-646-7777 Opt. 2 UW Medical Center - Northwest Northwest Outpatient Medical Center First Available Appointment 1550 N 115th St, Seattle, WA 98133 10330 Meridian Ave N, Seattle, WA 98133 (ANY LOCATION) 2nd Floor Radiology Front Desk: 206-668-1302 Suite 130 Radiology Front Desk: 206-668-6050 Routine Urgent STAT Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth: _ Daytime phone: Evening phone: Gender: M F Weight:___________ Insurance Carrier: RQI/Authorization #: Interpreter/Language: __ Insurance ID#: Auto Workers’ Comp Date of Injury: ______ Claim # __ EXAM INFORMATION HISTORY/REASON FOR EXAM: EXACT AREA OF INTEREST: EXAM INFORMATION QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY IMAGING: ICD-10: MRI CT ULTRASOUND Contrast as clinically indicated, or No Contrast Contrast as clinically indicated, or No Contrast MAMMOGRAPHY DEXA FLUOROSCOPY TOMOSYNTHESIS PET/CT NUCLEAR MEDICINE INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY X-RAY NOTES: (Please indicate if exam is considered “clinically urgent”) (Walk-In Only) TOMOSYNTHESIS Prior Related Imaging Type:_________________________ Facility:_________________________ Date:___________________ Reporting Routine call report # Patient to return with CD STAT call report # Other: __________ ________________________ ______________________ ____________ _______ ______ Provider Signature (required) Provider Name (please print) Phone Date Time (Provider signature required.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultrasound Induced Cavitation and Resonance Amplification Using Adaptive Feedback Control System
    Master's Thesis Electrical Engineering Ultrasound induced cavitation and resonance amplification using adaptive feedback Control System Vipul. Vijigiri Taraka Rama Krishna Pamidi This thesis is presented as part of Degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering with Emphasis on Signal Processing Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH) September 2014 Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden School of Engineering Department of Electrical Engineering (AET) Supervisor: Dr. Torbjörn Löfqvist, PhD, LTU Co- Supervisor: Dr. Örjan Johansson, PhD, LTU Shadow Supervisor/Examiner: Dr. Sven Johansson, PhD, BTH Ultrasound induced cavitation and resonance amplification using adaptive feedback Control System Master`s thesis Vipul, Taraka, 2014 Performed in Electrical Engineering, EISlab, Dep’t of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Acoustics Lab, dep’t of Acoustics at Lulea University of Technology ii | Page This thesis is submitted to the Department of Applied signal processing at Blekinge Institute of Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering with emphasis on Signal Processing. Contact Information: Authors: Vipul Vijigiri Taraka Rama Krishna Pamidi Dept. of Applied signal processing Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH), Sweden E-mail: [email protected],[email protected] E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] External Advisors: Dr. Torbjörn Löfqvist Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering Internet: www.ltu.se Luleå University of technology (LTU), Sweden Phone: +46 (0)920-491777 E-mail: [email protected] Co-Advisor: Dr. Örjan Johansson Internet: www.ltu.se Department of the built environment and natural resources- Phone: +46 (0)920-491386 -Operation, maintenance and acoustics Luleå University of technology (LTU), Sweden E-mail: [email protected] University Advisor/Examiner: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • RADIOGRAPHY to Prepare Individuals to Become Registered Radiologic Technologists
    RADIOGRAPHY To prepare individuals to become Registered Radiologic Technologists. THE WORKFORCE CAPITAL This two-year, advanced medical program trains students in radiography. Radiography uses radiation to produce images of tissues, organs, bones and vessels of the body. The radiographer is an essential member of the health care team who works in a variety of settings. Responsibili- ties include accurately positioning the patient, producing quality diagnostic images, maintaining equipment and keeping computerized records. This certificate program of specialized training focuses on each of these responsibilities. Graduates are eligible to apply for the national credential examination to become a registered technologist in radiography, RT(R). Contact Student Services for current tuition rates and enrollment information. 580.242.2750 Mission, Goals, and Student Learning Outcomes Program Effectiveness Data Radiography Program Guidelines (Policies and Procedures) “The programs at Autry prepare you for the workforce with no extra training needed after graduation.” – Kenedy S. autrytech.edu ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES 1201 West Willow | Enid, Oklahoma, 73703 | 580.242.2750 | autrytech.edu COURSE LENGTH Twenty-four-month daytime program î August-July î Monday-Friday Academic hours: 8:15am-3:45pm Clinical hours: Eight-hour shifts between 7am-5pm with some ADMISSION PROCEDURES evening assignments required Applicants should contact Student Services at Autry Technology Center to request an information/application packet. Applicants who have a completed application on file and who have met entrance requirements will be considered for the program. Meeting ADULT IN-DISTRICT COSTS the requirements does not guarantee admission to the program. Qualified applicants will be contacted for an interview, and class Year One: $2732 (Additional cost of books and supplies approx: $1820) selection will be determined by the admissions committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Acr–Nasci–Sir–Spr Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (Cta)
    The American College of Radiology, with more than 30,000 members, is the principal organization of radiologists, radiation oncologists, and clinical medical physicists in the United States. The College is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science of radiology, improve radiologic services to the patient, study the socioeconomic aspects of the practice of radiology, and encourage continuing education for radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and persons practicing in allied professional fields. The American College of Radiology will periodically define new practice parameters and technical standards for radiologic practice to help advance the science of radiology and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing practice parameters and technical standards will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each practice parameter and technical standard, representing a policy statement by the College, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review and approval. The practice parameters and technical standards recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice parameter and technical standard by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. Revised 2021 (Resolution 47)* ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR THE PERFORMANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF BODY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY (CTA) PREAMBLE This document is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for patients. Practice Parameters and Technical Standards are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care1.
    [Show full text]
  • MRC Review of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Within the Medical Imaging Research Landscape
    MRC Review of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) within The Medical Imaging Research Landscape August 2017 Content 1 Introduction 3 2 The medical imaging research landscape in the UK 4 2.1 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 4 2.2 PET, including PET-MRI 6 2.3 Magnetoencephalography 7 3 Scientific uses and demand for PET imaging 8 3.1 Clinical practice 8 3.2 Research use of PET 8 3.3 Demand for PET 10 4 Bottlenecks 11 4.1 Cost 11 4.2 Radiochemistry requirements 12 4.3 Capacity 13 4.4 Analysis and modelling 13 5 Future Opportunities 14 5.1 Mitigating the high costs 14 5.2 Capacity building 14 5.3 Better Networking 15 6 Discussion and conclusions 16 Appendix 1 Experts consulted in the review 17 Appendix 2 Interests of other funders 18 Appendix 3 Usage and cost of PET in research 21 Appendix 4 Summary of facilities and capabilities across UK PET centres of excellence 23 2 1. Introduction This report aims to provide a review of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) within the medical imaging research landscape and a high level strategic review of the UK’s capabilities and needs in this area. The review was conducted by face-to-face and telephone interviews with 35 stakeholders from UK centres of excellence, international experts, industry and other funders (list at appendix 1). Data were also collected on facilities, resources and numbers of scans conducted across the centres of excellence using a questionnaire. The review has focused predominantly on PET imaging, but given MRC’s significant recent investment in other imaging modalities (7T Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), hyperpolarised MRI) through the Clinical Research Infrastructure (CRI) Initiative, these are also considered more briefly.
    [Show full text]
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
    Obstetrics and Gynecology Obstetrics and Gynecology Medical School The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey Copyright © 2015 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey was first published beginning in 1942. For its 2017 Bicentennial, the University undertook the most significant updating of the Encyclopedia since the original, focusing on academic units. Entries from all versions are compiled in the Bicentennial digital and print-on-demand edition. Contents 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology (1942) 1 Reuben Peterson 2. Obstetrics and Gynecology (1975) 30 Fred J. Hodges 3. Obstetrics and Gynecology (2016) 32 Alexandra Minna Stern [1] Obstetrics and Gynecology (1942) Reuben Peterson WHEN the Department of Med icine and Surgery was established in 1850, two outstanding scientific men were members of its faculty — Silas Hamilton Douglass (A.M. hon. Vermont ’47) and Abram Sager (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ’31, M.D. Castleton Medical College ’35, A.M. hon. Michigan ’52). With the aid of Regent Zina Pitcher, one of the most widely known physicians in the state, they had organized the department. In 1851, his last year as Regent, Pitcher was appointed Emeritus Professor of the Institutes of Medicine and Obstetrics. The position was purely honorary, however, and his appointment to it was apparently the University’s only record of any special interest he may have had in the teaching of obstetrics. Sager was appointed Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine in January, 1848, with the understanding that he would also teach pharmacy and medical jurisprudence. By his own choice, in 1854, he was transferred to be Professor of Obstetrics and Physiology.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustics & Ultrasonics
    Dr.R.Vasuki Associate professor & Head Department of Physics Thiagarajar College of Engineering Madurai-625015 Science of sound that deals with origin, propagation and auditory sensation of sound. Sound production Propagation by human beings/machines Reception Classification of Sound waves Infrasonic audible ultrasonic Inaudible Inaudible < 20 Hz 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz ˃20,000 Hz Music – The sound which produces rhythmic sensation on the ears Noise-The sound which produces jarring & unpleasant effect To differentiate sound & noise Regularity of vibration Degree of damping Ability of ear to recognize the components Sound is a form of energy Sound is produced by the vibration of the body Sound requires a material medium for its propagation. When sound is conveyed from one medium to another medium there is no bodily motion of the medium Sound can be transmitted through solids, liquids and gases. Velocity of sound is higher in solids and lower in gases. Sound travels with velocity less than the velocity 8 of light. c= 3x 10 V0 =330 m/s at 0° degree Lightning comes first than thunder VT= V0+0.6 T Sound may be reflected, refracted or scattered. It undergoes diffraction and interference. Pitch or frequency Quality or timbre Intensity or Loudness Pitch is defined as the no of vibrations/sec. Frequency is a physical quantity but pitch is a physiological quantity. Mosquito- high pitch Lion- low pitch Quality or timbre is the one which helps to distinguish between the musical notes emitted by the different instruments or voices even though they have the same pitch. Intensity or loudness It is the average rate of flow of acoustic energy (Q) per unit area(A) situated normally to the direction of propagation of sound waves.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Radiology Cpt Codes
    2019 RADIOLOGY CPT CODES BONE DENSITOMETRY 1 Bone Density/DEXA 77080 CT 1 CT Abd & Pelvis W/ Contrast 74177 1 CT Enterography W/ Contrast 74177 1 CT Max/Facial W/O Contrast 70486 # CT Sinus Complete W/O Contrast 70486 1 CT Abd & Pelvis W W/O Contrast 74178 1 CT Extremity Lower W/ Contrast 73701 1 CT Neck W/ Contrast 70491 # CT Sinus Limited W/O Contrast 76380 1 CT Abd & Pelvis W/O Contrast 74176 1 CT Extremity Lower W/O Contrast 73700 1 CT Neck W/O Contrast 70490 # CT Spine Cervical W/ Contrast 72126 1 CT Abd W/ Contrast 74160 1 CT Extremity Upper W/ Contrast 73201 1 CT Orbit/ IAC W/ Contrast 70481 # CT Spine Cervical W/O Contrast 72125 1 CT Abd W/O Contrast 74150 1 CT Extremity Upper W/O Contrast 73200 1 CT Orbit/ IAC W/O Contrast 70480 # CT Spine Lumbar W/ Contrast 72132 1 CT Abd W W/O Contrast 74170 1 CT Head W/ Contrast 70460 1 CT Orbit/ IAC W W/O Contrast 70482 # CT Spine Lumbar W/O Contrast 72131 1 CT Chest W/ Contrast 71260 1 CT Head W/O Contrast 70450 1 CT Pelvis W/ Contrast 72193 # CT Spine Thoracic W/ Contrast 72129 1 CT Chest W/O Contrast 71250 1 CT Head W W/O Contrast 70470 1 CT Pelvis W/O Contrast 72192 # CT Spine Thoracic W/O Contrast 72128 1 CT Chest W W/O Contrast 71270 1 CT Max/Facial W/ Contrast 70487 1 CT Pelvis W W/O Contrast 72194 # CT Stone Protocol W/O Contrast 74176 CTA 1 Cardiac Calcium Score only 75571 1 CT Angiogram Abd & Pelvis W W/O Contrast 74174 1 CT Angiogram Head W W/O Contrast 70496 # CT / CTA Heart W Contrast 75574 1 CT Angiogram Abdomen W W/O Contrast 74175 1 CT Angiogram Chest W W/O Contrast 71275
    [Show full text]
  • AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of an Ultrasound Examination of the Abdomen And/Or Retroperitoneum
    1 AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of an Ultrasound Examination of the Abdomen and/or Retroperitoneum Parameter developed in conjunction with the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR), and the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU). The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) is a multidisciplinary association dedicated to advancing the safe and effective use of ultrasound in medicine through professional and public education, research, development of parameters, and accreditation. To promote this mission, the AIUM is pleased to publish, in conjunction with the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR), and the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU), this AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of an Ultrasound Examination of the Abdomen and/or Retroperitoneum. We are indebted to the many volunteers who contributed their time, knowledge, and energy to bringing this document to completion. The AIUM represents the entire range of clinical and basic science interests in medical diagnostic ultrasound, and, with hundreds of volunteers, the AIUM has promoted the safe and effective use of ultrasound in clinical medicine for more than 65 years. This document and others like it will continue to advance this mission. © 2017 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 14750 Sweitzer Ln, Suite 100 Laurel, MD 20707-5906 USA www.aium.org 2 Practice parameters of the AIUM are intended to provide the medical ultrasound community with parameters for the performance and recording of high-quality ultrasound examinations. The parameters reflect what the AIUM considers the minimum criteria for a complete examination in each area but are not intended to establish a legal standard of care.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnostic Radiography Is the Production of High Quality Images for the Purpose of Diagnosis of Injury Or Disease
    A Career in Medical Imaging What is Diagnostic Radiography / Medical Imaging? Diagnostic Radiography is the production of high quality images for the purpose of diagnosis of injury or disease. It is a pivotal aspect of medicine and a patient's diagnosis and ultimate treatment is often dependent on the images produced. Diagnostic Radiography uses both ionising and non-ionising radiation in the imaging process. The equipment used is at the high end of technology and computerisation within medicine. What does a Diagnostic Radiographer / Medical Imaging Technologist do? A Diagnostic Radiographer/Medical Imaging Technologist is a key member of the health care team. They are responsible for producing high quality medical images that assist medical specialists and practitioners to describe, diagnose, monitor and treat a patient’s injury or illness. Much of the medical equipment used to gain the images is highly technical and involves state of the art computerisation. A Diagnostic Radiographer/Medical Imaging Technologist needs to have the scientific and technological background to understand and use the equipment within a modern Radiology department as well as compassion and strong interpersonal skills. They need to be able to demonstrate care and understanding and have a genuine interest in a patient's welfare. The Diagnostic Radiographer/Medical Imaging Technologist will also need to be able to explain to the patient the need for the preparation and post examination care as well as the procedure to be undertaken. The Diagnostic Radiographer/Medical Imaging Technologist is able to work in a highly advanced technical profession that requires excellent people skills. It is an exciting and rewarding profession to embark on and great opportunities await the graduate.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Michigan Regents, 1837-2009
    FORMER MEMBERS OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARDS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1837-20091 Thomas Fitzgerald ................ 1837-1900 Henry Whiting ................... 1858-1863 Robert McClelland ................ 1837-1900 Oliver L. Spaulding ............... 1858-1863 Michael Hoffman ................. 1837-1838 Luke Parsons .................... 1858-1862 John F. Porter .................... 1837-1838 Edward C. Walker ................ 1864-1881 Lucius Lyon ..................... 1837-1839 George Willard ................... 1864-1873 John Norvell..................... 1837-1839 Thomas D. Gilbert ................ 1864-1875 Seba Murphy .................... 1837-1839 Thomas J. Joslin .................. 1864-1867 John J. Adam .................... 1837-1840 Henry C. Knight .................. 1864-1867 Samuel Denton .................. 1837-1840 Alvah Sweetzer .................. 1864-1900 Gideon O. Whittemore ............. 1837-1840 James A. Sweezey................. 1864-1871 Henry Schoolcraft ................. 1837-1841 Cyrus M. Stockwell ................ 1865-1871 Isaac E. Crary .................... 1837-1843 J. M. B. Sill ...................... 1867-1869 Ross Wilkins .................... 1837-1842 Hiram A. Burt.................... 1868-1875 Zina Pitcher ..................... 1837-1852 Joseph Estabrook ................. 1870-1877 Gurdon C. Leech ................. 1838-1840 Jonas H. McGowan................ 1870-1877 Jonathan Kearsley................. 1838-1852 Claudius B. Grant ................. 1872-1879 Joseph W. Brown ................
    [Show full text]
  • Training in Diagnostic Ultrasound: Essentials, Principles and Standards
    This report contains the collective views of on international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy offe World Health Organization TRAINING IN DIAGNOSTIC ULTRASOUND: ESSENTIALS, PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS Report of a WHO Study Group Geneva 1998 WHO L~braryCataloguing In Publ~catlonData Training in diagnostic ultrasound : essentials, principles and standards : report of a WHO study group (WHO technical report series ; 875) 1 .Ultrasonography 2.Diagnostic imag~ng- standards 3.Guidelines 4.Health per- sonnel - education I Title II.Series (NLM Classification: WN 200) The World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full Applications and enquiries should be addressed to the Office of Publications, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, which will be glad to prov~dethe latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprlnts and translations already available. O World Health Organization 1998 Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protect~onin accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opnlon whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organ~zat~onin preference to others of a simllar nature that are not mentioned.
    [Show full text]