Introduction: High-frequency sound waves that can be used to image the body's organs are called ultrasound. It is sound with a frequency above 20,000 Hz. Ultrasound is capable of travelling through body tissues and allows useful images to be displayed using relatively simple techniques. It is used as one of the most common imaging methods in medical diagnostics. It is one of the imaging techniques where the operator holds the probe in contact with the patient. During the use of ultrasound devices, it is necessary to ensure the correct functioning of the diagnostic system in order to exlude the possibility of mechanical or thermal damage and to limit the risk of wrong diagnosis. Purpose: The aim of this thesis is to investigate the differences in the quality of the images obtained with different diagnostic ultrasound devices on an ultrasound phantom and using different monitors. We used two ultrasound devices, namely Sonoscape E2 in iViz wireless or pocket wireless ultrasound. The images were taken on a Multi-Purpose, Multi-Tissue Ultrasound Phantom model 040GSE. We used a diagnostic monitor and a conventional monitor to review the images. Methods: We included articles describing quality control of ultrasound devices, ultrasound machines, phantoms and their characteristics. Based on the findings of the literature review, an experimental part was carried out at the Faculty of Medicine. Finally, we evaluated the ultrasound images taken with the two ultrasound machines and reviewed them on a BARCO diagnostic monitor and a conventional monitor. The testing procedure consisted of three different tests, namely homogeneity, spatial resolution and contrast resolution. Results: While in the comparison of ultrasounds it was the case that the evaluators rated the homogeneity of the Fuji ultrasound slightly better than that of the Sonoscape E2. The same was true for the contrast resolution test. Spatial resolution was rated better for the Sonoscape ultrasound. There was no statistically significant difference between the two ultrasounds in the homogeneity and contrast resolution tests. The Fujifilm and Sonoscape E2 ultrasound were statistically significantly different in spatial resolution. Discussion and conclusion: We set out in our thesis to find out which ultrasound has better image quality and on which monitor certain quality control tests are better seen. The results are expected, as diagnostic monitors are not used in ultrasound diagnostics, as the visibility of what is required is already good enough on an ordinary monitor. Comparing the two monitors, only our survey concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the two monitors for the contrast resolution test, but not for the other two tests. When comparing the ultrasounds, our conclusion was that the Fujifilm and Sonoscape E2 ultrasound are statistically significantly different only when looking at the images of the spatial resolution test. For the other two tests, the difference is not statistically significant.
|
