June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Comparing Butterfly IQ vs Conventional Ophthalmic Ultrasonic Imaging
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David Horton
    University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California, United States
  • Ermin Dzihic
    University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California, United States
  • Josiah K To
    Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States
  • Anderson N Vu
    Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States
  • Andrew Browne
    Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States
    Institute of Clinical and Translational Science, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   David Horton, None; Ermin Dzihic, None; Josiah To, None; Anderson Vu, None; Andrew Browne, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  This project was supported by a RPB unrestricted grant to UCI Department of Ophthalmology and a UCI ICTS NIH KL2 Grant number is KL2 TR001416
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 2308. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      David Horton, Ermin Dzihic, Josiah K To, Anderson N Vu, Andrew Browne; Comparing Butterfly IQ vs Conventional Ophthalmic Ultrasonic Imaging. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):2308.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Limited reports systematically characterize portable ultrasound devices, such as the Butterfly IQ (BiQ), in ocular imaging. In this study we compare the image resolution of the BiQ portable ultrasound with a conventional piezo-based ophthalmic ultrasound when scanning a phantom model. We hypothesize that the BiQ will perform as well as the conventional B-Scan ophthalmic ultrasound.

Methods : Five BiQ imaging presets (MSK, MSK-Soft Tissue(MSK-ST), Nerve(N), Pediatric Lung(PL), and Ophthalmic(Ophtho)) were chosen and compared against the 10 MHz B-Scan probe on the Ellex Eye Cubed v3 ultrasound unit. Knox gelatin mixed with a gelatin:water ratio of 5:1 cast in a 5cm x 5cm x 2.5cm silicone mold was used as a phantom. Models contained a total of 6 paper stacks made of 3 paper sheets (1mm x 1mm x 0.1mm) with double-sided Scotch tape between layers to increase gap thickness in set increments as in Fig 1 (A, D). The BiQ was held parallel to the ground and scanned in a vertical pattern as in Fig 1 (B, E). The B-scan gain was set to 50 dB and the BIQ gain was set to 0 for MSK, 0 for MSK-ST, 0 for N, 20 for PL, and 0 for Ophtho. Calculated gap length was compared to image-based measurements, which were determined using ImageJ. Resolution was measured in ImageJ using the 1D brightness vs depth plot profile function as in Fig 1 (C, F). The derivative of the plot profile was used to create a slope function in order to determine the local minima, which corresponds to the position of peak brightness. The 1D linear distances were then measured between calculated slope minima of each peak.

Results : The BiQ was less accurate than the Eye Cubed at measuring distances less than 200 microns. The Eye Cubed measured 0.19 +/- 0.00 mm while the butterfly had measurements of 0.39 +/- 0.06 mm(MSK), 0.30 +/- 0.04 mm(MSK-ST), 0.26 +/- 0.39 mm(PL), 0.39 +/- 0.04 mm(N), 0.26 +/- 0.07 mm(Ophtho) for the 1-layer molds. At distances greater than 200 microns (>2 layers of double-sided tape) the BiQ and Eye Cubed performed similarly.

Conclusions : The BiQ demonstrates promising potential as a portable and less costly alternative to conventional piezo-based ophthalmic ultrasound machines in the evaluation of ophthalmic pathologies.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Fig 1: (A, D) 3-layer paper stack inside a gelatin phantom with spacing defined by laminae of double-sided tape. (B, E) Images from BiQ(B) vs Eye Cubed(E). (C, F) Gap distance measured between 1D peak brightness vs depth plot profile.

Fig 1: (A, D) 3-layer paper stack inside a gelatin phantom with spacing defined by laminae of double-sided tape. (B, E) Images from BiQ(B) vs Eye Cubed(E). (C, F) Gap distance measured between 1D peak brightness vs depth plot profile.

 

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×