A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be bes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ultrasound (Leeds, England) England), 2024-02, Vol.32 (1), p.28-35
Main Authors: Park, Kristen E, Mehta, Preeya, Tran, Charlene, Parikh, Alomi O, Zhou, Qifa, Zhang-Nunes, Sandy
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603
container_end_page 35
container_issue 1
container_start_page 28
container_title Ultrasound (Leeds, England)
container_volume 32
creator Park, Kristen E
Mehta, Preeya
Tran, Charlene
Parikh, Alomi O
Zhou, Qifa
Zhang-Nunes, Sandy
description Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be best suited for ophthalmic and facial aesthetic applications. This study compares five popular handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices to help guide clinicians in choosing the device best suited for their needs. Methods: We compared five point-of-care ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+ (Butterfly, Burlington, MA), L15 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), L20 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Lumify (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Vscan Air (GE, Boston, MA). Three ophthalmologists obtained the following views on three volunteers: eight arteries, four ocular and periocular structures and areas of filler injections. The image quality of each view was graded on a four-point Likert-type scale. In addition, graders filled out a survey. The data were analysed using analysis of variance tests with the significance level set to p 
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1742271X231166895
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2922447671</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1742271X231166895</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2922447671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMo3h_AjWTppmNubdLlMHiDATcK7soxc-JE2qYmreDbm3HUjeAqh_D93-H8hJxxNuNc60uulRCaPwnJeVWZutwhh_lPFlwqtfs1i2IDHJCjlF4Zk1potk8OpJFcMV4fktWc2tANEH0KPQ2OOv-OdAi-H4vgCgsR6dSOEVKY-hVd4bu3mKgLkU4Jqc-ZYT2uoe1CG14-KGTIgfXQUsA0rnH0Np2QPQdtwtPv95g8Xl89LG6L5f3N3WK-LKxUbCwsc2idEKo2yiKCgVILxbCqjdUKtRGmZsxC7QAqgdI4XSLU4Ax_LsuKyWNysfUOMbxNeX3T-WSxbaHHMKVG1FmudKV5RvkWtTGkFNE1Q_QdxI-Gs2ZTbvOn3Jw5_9ZPzx2ufhM_bWZgtgUSvGDzGqbY53P_MX4C6SSC8A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2922447671</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics</title><source>Sage Journals Online</source><creator>Park, Kristen E ; Mehta, Preeya ; Tran, Charlene ; Parikh, Alomi O ; Zhou, Qifa ; Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Kristen E ; Mehta, Preeya ; Tran, Charlene ; Parikh, Alomi O ; Zhou, Qifa ; Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be best suited for ophthalmic and facial aesthetic applications. This study compares five popular handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices to help guide clinicians in choosing the device best suited for their needs. Methods: We compared five point-of-care ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+ (Butterfly, Burlington, MA), L15 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), L20 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Lumify (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Vscan Air (GE, Boston, MA). Three ophthalmologists obtained the following views on three volunteers: eight arteries, four ocular and periocular structures and areas of filler injections. The image quality of each view was graded on a four-point Likert-type scale. In addition, graders filled out a survey. The data were analysed using analysis of variance tests with the significance level set to p &lt; 0.05. Results: In terms of overall image quality, the L20 received the highest mean rating, followed by the L15, Vscan Air, Butterfly IQ+ and the Lumify (p &lt; 0.05). With further stratification for structure type, the L20 was ranked first for filler, artery and orbital imaging (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: The L20 received the highest image quality rankings. While image quality is an important aspect of point-of-care ultrasound device selection, other factors such as cost, wireless capabilities, range of presets and battery life should also be considered.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1742-271X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-1344</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1742271X231166895</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38314019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2024-02, Vol.32 (1), p.28-35</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5435-3424</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,79364</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38314019$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Kristen E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehta, Preeya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tran, Charlene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parikh, Alomi O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Qifa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics</title><title>Ultrasound (Leeds, England)</title><addtitle>Ultrasound</addtitle><description>Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be best suited for ophthalmic and facial aesthetic applications. This study compares five popular handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices to help guide clinicians in choosing the device best suited for their needs. Methods: We compared five point-of-care ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+ (Butterfly, Burlington, MA), L15 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), L20 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Lumify (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Vscan Air (GE, Boston, MA). Three ophthalmologists obtained the following views on three volunteers: eight arteries, four ocular and periocular structures and areas of filler injections. The image quality of each view was graded on a four-point Likert-type scale. In addition, graders filled out a survey. The data were analysed using analysis of variance tests with the significance level set to p &lt; 0.05. Results: In terms of overall image quality, the L20 received the highest mean rating, followed by the L15, Vscan Air, Butterfly IQ+ and the Lumify (p &lt; 0.05). With further stratification for structure type, the L20 was ranked first for filler, artery and orbital imaging (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: The L20 received the highest image quality rankings. While image quality is an important aspect of point-of-care ultrasound device selection, other factors such as cost, wireless capabilities, range of presets and battery life should also be considered.</description><issn>1742-271X</issn><issn>1743-1344</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMo3h_AjWTppmNubdLlMHiDATcK7soxc-JE2qYmreDbm3HUjeAqh_D93-H8hJxxNuNc60uulRCaPwnJeVWZutwhh_lPFlwqtfs1i2IDHJCjlF4Zk1potk8OpJFcMV4fktWc2tANEH0KPQ2OOv-OdAi-H4vgCgsR6dSOEVKY-hVd4bu3mKgLkU4Jqc-ZYT2uoe1CG14-KGTIgfXQUsA0rnH0Np2QPQdtwtPv95g8Xl89LG6L5f3N3WK-LKxUbCwsc2idEKo2yiKCgVILxbCqjdUKtRGmZsxC7QAqgdI4XSLU4Ax_LsuKyWNysfUOMbxNeX3T-WSxbaHHMKVG1FmudKV5RvkWtTGkFNE1Q_QdxI-Gs2ZTbvOn3Jw5_9ZPzx2ufhM_bWZgtgUSvGDzGqbY53P_MX4C6SSC8A</recordid><startdate>202402</startdate><enddate>202402</enddate><creator>Park, Kristen E</creator><creator>Mehta, Preeya</creator><creator>Tran, Charlene</creator><creator>Parikh, Alomi O</creator><creator>Zhou, Qifa</creator><creator>Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5435-3424</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202402</creationdate><title>A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics</title><author>Park, Kristen E ; Mehta, Preeya ; Tran, Charlene ; Parikh, Alomi O ; Zhou, Qifa ; Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Kristen E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehta, Preeya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tran, Charlene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parikh, Alomi O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Qifa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound (Leeds, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Kristen E</au><au>Mehta, Preeya</au><au>Tran, Charlene</au><au>Parikh, Alomi O</au><au>Zhou, Qifa</au><au>Zhang-Nunes, Sandy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound (Leeds, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound</addtitle><date>2024-02</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>28</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>28-35</pages><issn>1742-271X</issn><eissn>1743-1344</eissn><abstract>Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be best suited for ophthalmic and facial aesthetic applications. This study compares five popular handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices to help guide clinicians in choosing the device best suited for their needs. Methods: We compared five point-of-care ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+ (Butterfly, Burlington, MA), L15 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), L20 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Lumify (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Vscan Air (GE, Boston, MA). Three ophthalmologists obtained the following views on three volunteers: eight arteries, four ocular and periocular structures and areas of filler injections. The image quality of each view was graded on a four-point Likert-type scale. In addition, graders filled out a survey. The data were analysed using analysis of variance tests with the significance level set to p &lt; 0.05. Results: In terms of overall image quality, the L20 received the highest mean rating, followed by the L15, Vscan Air, Butterfly IQ+ and the Lumify (p &lt; 0.05). With further stratification for structure type, the L20 was ranked first for filler, artery and orbital imaging (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: The L20 received the highest image quality rankings. While image quality is an important aspect of point-of-care ultrasound device selection, other factors such as cost, wireless capabilities, range of presets and battery life should also be considered.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>38314019</pmid><doi>10.1177/1742271X231166895</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5435-3424</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1742-271X
ispartof Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2024-02, Vol.32 (1), p.28-35
issn 1742-271X
1743-1344
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2922447671
source Sage Journals Online
title A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T10%3A39%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20five%20point-of-care%20ultrasound%20devices%20for%20use%20in%20ophthalmology%20and%20facial%20aesthetics&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20(Leeds,%20England)&rft.au=Park,%20Kristen%20E&rft.date=2024-02&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=28&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=28-35&rft.issn=1742-271X&rft.eissn=1743-1344&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1742271X231166895&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2922447671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c0fecf224984ceea8a57240e698c74e7828900ca9faa62e38f75ea9af81b55603%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2922447671&rft_id=info:pmid/38314019&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1742271X231166895&rfr_iscdi=true