Clinical Significance of US Artifacts

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160175

This article reviews gray-scale US artifacts, with a focus on underlying physical mechanisms, clinical troubleshooting, and the effects of newer US modes.

Artifacts are frequently encountered at clinical US, and while some are unwanted, others may reveal valuable information related to the structure and composition of the underlying tissue. They are essential in making ultrasonography (US) a clinically useful imaging modality but also can lead to errors in image interpretation and can obscure diagnoses. Many of these artifacts can be understood as deviations from the assumptions made in generating the image. Therefore, understanding the physical basis of US image formation is critical to understanding US artifacts and thus proper image interpretation. This review is limited to gray-scale artifacts and is organized into discussions of beam- and resolution-related, location-related (ie, path and speed), and attenuation-related artifacts. Specifically, artifacts discussed include those related to physical mechanisms of spatial resolution, speckle, secondary lobes, reflection and reverberation, refraction, speed of sound, and attenuation. The underlying physical mechanisms and appearances are discussed, followed by real-world strategies to mitigate or accentuate these artifacts, depending on the clinical application. Relatively new US modes, such as spatial compounding, tissue harmonic imaging, and speckle reduction imaging, are now often standard in many imaging protocols; the effects of these modes on US artifacts are discussed. The ability of a radiologist to understand the fundamental physics of ultrasound, recognize common US artifacts, and provide recommendations for altering the imaging technique is essential for proper image interpretation, troubleshooting, and utilization of the full potential of this modality.

©RSNA, 2017

References

  • 1. Zagzebski JA. Essentials of ultrasound physics. St Louis, Mo: Mosby, 1996.
  • 2. Hoskins PR, Martin K, Thrush A. Diagnostic ultrasound: physics and equipment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge, 2010.
  • 3. Szabo T. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging: inside out. Oxford, England: Elsevier, 2004.
  • 4. Middleton WD, Siegel MJ, Dahiya N. Ultrasound artifacts. In: Siegel MJ, ed. Pediatric sonography. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2011; 21–42.
  • 5. Gill R. The physics and technology of diagnostic ultrasound: a practitioner’s guide. Sydney, Australia: High Frequency Publishing, 2012.
  • 6. Barthez PY, Léveillé R, Scrivani PV. Side lobes and grating lobes artifacts in ultrasound imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1997;38(5):387–393.
  • 7. Bushberg JT, Seibert AJ, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. Ultrasound. In: The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012; 500–576.
  • 8. Danse EM, Van Beers BE, Gilles A, Jacquet L. Sonographic detection of intestinal pneumatosis. Eur J Ultrasound 2000;11(3):201–203.
  • 9. Bhargava P, Parisi M. Gastric pneumatosis and portal venous gas: benign findings in hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. Pediatr Radiol 2009;39(4):413.
  • 10. Anvari A, Forsberg F, Samir AE. A primer on the physical principles of tissue harmonic imaging. RadioGraphics 2015;35(7):1955–1964.
  • 11. Avruch L, Cooperberg PL. The ring-down artifact. J Ultrasound Med 1985;4(1):21–28.
  • 12. Soldati G, Copetti R, Sher S. Sonographic interstitial syndrome: the sound of lung water. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(2):163–174.
  • 13. Heng HG, Widmer WR. Appearance of common ultrasound artifacts in conventional vs. spatial compound imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010;51(6):621–627.
  • 14. Kremkau FW, Taylor KJ. Artifacts in ultrasound imaging. J Ultrasound Med 1986;5(4):227–237.
  • 15. Fontanarosa D, van der Meer S, Bamber J, Harris E, O’Shea T, Verhaegen F. Review of ultrasound image guidance in external beam radiotherapy: I. Treatment planning and inter-fraction motion management. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(3):R77–R114.
  • 16. Rubin JM, Adler RS, Bude RO, Fowlkes JB, Carson PL. Clean and dirty shadowing at US: a reappraisal. Radiology 1991;181(1):231–236.
  • 17. Ortega D, Burns PN, Hope Simpson D, Wilson SR. Tissue harmonic imaging: is it a benefit for bile duct sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(3):653–659.
  • 18. Szopinski KT, Pajk AM, Wysocki M, Amy D, Szopinska M, Jakubowski W. Tissue harmonic imaging: utility in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22(5):479–487; quiz 488–489.

Article History

Received: July 8 2016
Revision requested: Sept 21 2016
Revision received: Oct 18 2016
Accepted: Oct 27 2016
Published online: Aug 04 2017
Published in print: Sept 2017