We perform finite element modeling of pulse-echo ultrasound of a hard inclusion in a soft tissue to gain a better understanding of B-mode image brightness characteristics. We simulate a pressure wave emitted by an ultrasound transducer through the inclusion-tissue medium by prescribing suitable boundary conditions, and collect the scattered wave response to simulate the behavior of the transducer array used for pulse-echo ultrasound. We form B-mode images from simulated channel data using standard delay and sum beamforming. We establish the accuracy of the finite element model by comparing the point spread function with that obtained from Field II ultrasound simulation program. We also demonstrate qualitative validation by comparing the brightness characteristics of rough and smooth surfaced circular inclusions with experimental images of a cylindrical metal tool immersed in a water tank. We next conduct simulation studies to evaluate changes in B-mode image brightness intensity and contrast related to different constitutive properties, namely, compressibility of the inclusion, impedance contrast between the host and inclusion, and surface roughness of the inclusion. We find that the intensity observed behind a hard inclusion in the axial direction is strongly affected by the compressibility and roughness of the inclusion. Also, the perceived width of the stone based on the intensity is greater for rougher stones. Our study indicates that imaging of compressible inclusions may benefit from targeted B-mode image forming algorithms. Our modeling framework can potentially be useful in differentiating hard inclusions from surrounding parenchyma, and for classifying kidney stones or gallstones.
UlusanSKocZTokmakN.Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: comparison with CT.J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;
35(5):256–61. doi:10.1002/jcu.20347.
2.
HuangJTriedmanJKVasilyevNVSuematsuYClevelandRODupontPE.Imaging artifacts of medical instruments in ultrasound-guided interventions.J Ultrasound Med. 2007;
26(10):1303–22. doi:10.7863/jum.2007.26.10.1303.
3.
FowlerKABLockenJADuchesneJHWilliamsonMR.US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard.Radiology. 2002;
222(1):109–113. doi:10.1148/radiol.2221010453.
4.
UnalDYeniEKaraoglanogluMVeritAKaratasOF.Can conventional examinations contribute to the diagnostic power of unenhanced helical computed tomography in urolithiasis?Urol Int. 2003;
70(1):31–5.
5.
RayAAGhiculeteDPaceKTD’A HoneyRJ.Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology. 2010;
76(2):295–300. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.015.
6.
KannoTKubotaMSakamotoHNishiyamaROkadaTHigashiY, et al.
The efficacy of ultrasonography for the detection of renal stone. Urology. 2014;
84(2):285–88. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.010.
7.
GanesanVDeSGreeneDTorricelliFCMongaM.Accuracy of ultrasonography for renal stone detection and size determination: is it good enough for management decisions. BJU Int. 2017;
119(3):464–69. doi:10.1111/bju.13605.
8.
KremkauFWTaylorKJ.Artifacts in ultrasound imaging.J Ultrasound Med. 1986;
5(4):227–37. doi:10.7863/jum.1986.5.4.227.
9.
ScanlanKA.Sonographic artifacts and their origins.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;
156(6):1267–72. doi:10.2214/ajr.156.6.2028876.
10.
HefnerLVGoldsteinA.Resonance by rod-shaped reflectors in ultrasound test objects. Radiology. 1981;
139(1):189–93. doi:10.1148/radiology.139.1.7208920.
11.
WendellBAAtheyPA.Ultrasonic appearance of metallic foreign bodies in parenchymal organs.J Clin Ultrasound. 1981;
9(3):133–35. doi:10.1002/jcu.1870090307.
12.
ShapiroRSWinsbergF.Comet-tail artifact from cholesterol crystals: observations in the postlithotripsy gallbladder and an in vitro model.Radiology. 1990;
177(1):153–56. doi:10.1148/radiology.177.1.2204960.
13.
LichtensteinDMaziareGBidermanPGepnerABarréO.The comet-tail artifact. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;
156(5):1640–46. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.156.5.96-07096.
14.
LimJHLeeKSKimTSChungMP.Ring-down artifacts posterior to the right hemidiaphragm on abdominal sonography: sign of pulmonary parenchymal abnormalities.J Ultrasound Med. 1999;
18(6):403–10. doi:10.7863/jum.1999.18.6.403.
15.
LaingFCKurtzAB.The importance of ultrasonic side-lobe artifacts.Radiology. 1982;
145(3):763–68. doi:10.1148/radiology.145.3.7146410.
16.
AbbottJGThurstoneFL.Acoustic speckle: theory and experimental analysis.Ultrason Imaging. 1979;
1(4):303–24. doi:10.1016/0161-7346(79)90024-5.
17.
WellsPHalliwellM.Speckle in ultrasonic imaging. Ultrasonics. 1981;
19(5):225–29. doi:10.1016/0041-624X(81)90007-X.
18.
SommerFGFillyRAMintonMJ.Acoustic shadowing due to refractive and reflective effects. Am J Roentgenol. 1979;
132(6):973–79.
19.
ZderoRFentonPBryantJT.Diagnostic ultrasound artifacts during imaging of two-body interfaces: Part 1—wavelength resonance. Ultrasonics. 2002;
39(10):681–88. doi:10.1016/S0041-624X(02)00381-5.
FaranJJJr.Sound scattering by solid cylinders and spheres. J Acoust Soc Am. 1951;
23(4):405–18. doi:10.1121/1.1906780.
23.
HicklingR.Analysis of echoes from a solid elastic sphere in water. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;
34(10):1582–92. doi:10.1121/1.1909055.
24.
NeubauerWGDragonetteLR.Observation of waves radiated from circular cylinders caused by an incident pulse. J Acoust Soc Am. 1970;
48(5B):1135–49 doi:10.1121/1.1912254.
25.
SchuetzLSNeubauerWG.Acoustic reflection from cylinders—nonabsorbing and absorbing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977;
62(3):513–17. doi:10.1121/1. 381569.
26.
FlaxLVaradanVKVaradanVV.Scattering of an obliquely incident acoustic wave by an infinite cylinder. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980;
68(6):1832–35. doi:10.1121/1.385173.
27.
FanYHonarvarFSinclairANJafariMR.Circumferential resonance modes of solid elastic cylinders excited by obliquely incident acoustic waves.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;
113(1):102–13. doi:10.1121/1.1525289.
28.
ZarseCAHameedTAJacksonMEPishchalnikovYALingemanJEMcAteerJA, et al.
CT visible internal stone structure, but not Hounsfield unit value, of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) calculi predicts lithotripsy fragility in vitro.Urol Res. 2007;
35(4):201–206. doi:10.1007/s00240-007-0104.
29.
BhattaKMPrienELJrDretlerSP.Cystine calculi—rough and smooth: a new clinical distinction. J Urol. 1989;
142(4):937–40. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38946-2.
30.
JensenJASvendsenNB.Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers.IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectrics Freq Contr. 1992;
39(2):262–67. doi:10.1109/58.139123.
31.
JensenJA. Field: a program for simulating ultrasound systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic-Baltic Conference on Biomedical Imaging Published in Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, pp. 351-53.
32.
McGoughRJSamulskiTKellyJ.An efficient grid sectoring method for calculations of the near-field pressure generated by a circular piston. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;
115(5):1942–54.
33.
PintonGFDahlJRosenzweigSTraheyGE.A heterogeneous nonlinear attenuating full-wave model of ultrasound.IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2009;
56(3):474–88. doi:10.1109/TUFFC.2009.1066.
34.
TreebyBECoxBT.k-wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields. J Biomed Optic. 2010;
15(2):021314. doi:10.1117/1.3360308.
35.
KremkauFW.Physical principles of ultrasound.Semin Roentgenol. 1975;
10(4):259–263.
36.
HangiandreouNJ.AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in US. RadioGraphics. 2003;
23(4):1019–33.
37.
BatheK.Finite Element Procedures.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2006.
38.
DahakeGGracewskiSM.Finite difference predictions of P-SV wave propagation inside submerged solids. I. Liquid–solid interface conditions.J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;
102(4):2125–37. doi:10.1121/1.419592.
39.
DahakeGGracewskiSM.Finite difference predictions of P-SV wave propagation inside submerged solids. II. Effect of geometry.J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;
102(4):2138–45. doi:10.1121/1.419593.
40.
MihradiSHommaHKantoY.Numerical analysis of kidney stone fragmentation by short pulse impingement. JSME Int J A-Solid M. 2004;
47(4):581–90. doi:10.1299/jsmea.47.581.
41.
ClevelandROSapozhnikovOA.Modeling elastic wave propagation in kidney stones with application to shock wave lithotripsy.J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;
118(4):2667–76. doi:10.1121/1.2032187.
42.
ZhongPChuongCJPremingerGM.Characterization of fracture toughness of renal calculi using a microindentation technique. J Mater Sci Lett. 1993;
12(18):1460–62. doi:10.1007/BF00591608.
43.
CuljatMOGoldenbergDTewariPSinghRS.A review of tissue substitutes for ultrasound imaging.Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;
36(6):861–73. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.02.012.
44.
DeGarmoEPBlackJTKohserRA.Materials and Processes in Manufacturing. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2003.
DuanXQuMWangJTrevathanJVrtiskaTWilliamsJCJr., et al.
Differentiation of calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones using quantitative morphological information from micro-computerized and clinical computerized tomography. J Urol. 2013;
189(6):2350–56. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.004.
47.
DunmireBHarperJDCunitzBWLeeFCHsiRLiuZ, et al.
Use of the acoustic shadow width to determine kidney stone size with ultrasound. J Urol. 2016;
195(1):171–77. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.111.
