CONTEXT
Spatial average intensity (SAI) is often used by clinicians to gauge therapeutic ultrasound dosage, yet SAI measures are not directly regulated by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards. Current FDA guidelines permit a possible 50% to 150% minimum to maximum range of SAI values, potentially contributing to variability in clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To measure clinical values that describe ultrasound transducers and to determine the degree of intramanufacturer and intermanufacturer variability in effective radiating area, power, and SAI when the transducer is functioning at 3 MHz.
DESIGN
A descriptive and interferential approach was taken to this quasi-experimental design.
SETTING
Measurement laboratory.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS
Sixty-six 5-cm(2) ultrasound transducers were purchased from 6 different manufacturers.
INTERVENTION(S)
All transducers were calibrated and then assessed using standardized measurement techniques; SAI was normalized to account for variability in effective radiating area, resulting in an nSAI.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Effective radiating area, power, and nSAI.
RESULTS
All manufacturers with the exception of Omnisound (P = .534) showed a difference between the reported and measured effective radiating area values (P < .001). All transducers were within FDA guidelines for power (+/-20%). Chattanooga (0.85 +/- 0.05 W/cm(2)) had a lower nSAI (P < .05) than all other manufacturers functioning at 3 MHz. Intramanufacturer variability in SAI ranged from 16% to 35%, and intermanufacturer variability ranged from 22% to 61%.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians should consider treatment values of each individual transducer, regardless of the manufacturer. In addition, clinicians should scrutinize the power calibration and recalibration record of the transducer and adjust clinical settings as needed for the desired level of heating. Our data may aid in explaining the reported heating differences among transducers from different manufacturers. Stricter FDA standards regarding effective radiating area and total power are needed, and standards regulating SAI should be established.
[1]
M. Ziskin,et al.
Effects of two ultrasound devices and angles of application on the temperature of tissue phantom.
,
1998,
The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.
[2]
H. S. Osborne,et al.
The international electrotechnical commission
,
1953,
Electrical Engineering.
[3]
S. Devor,et al.
Identical 3-MHz ultrasound treatments with different devices produce different intramuscular temperatures.
,
2003,
The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.
[4]
S D Pye,et al.
The performance of ultrasound physiotherapy machines in Lothian Region, Scotland, 1992.
,
1994,
Ultrasound in medicine & biology.
[5]
M C Fyfe,et al.
The importance of measurement of effective transducers radiating area in the testing and calibration of "therapeutic" ultrasonic instruments.
,
1982,
Health physics.
[6]
Snow Cj.
Ultrasound therapy units in Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario: performance evaluation.
,
1982
.
[7]
W. Holcomb,et al.
A Comparison of Temperature Increases Produced by 2 Commonly Used Ultrasound Units.
,
2003,
Journal of athletic training.
[8]
R A Robinson,et al.
Survey of use and performance of ultrasonic therapy equipment in Pinellas County, Florida.
,
1974,
Physical therapy.
[9]
Jean-Michel Brismée,et al.
A calibration study of therapeutic ultrasound units.
,
2002,
Physical therapy.
[10]
Jj Lloyd,et al.
A Calibration Survey of Physiotherapy Ultrasound Equipment in North Wales
,
1988
.
[11]
Dwain M Daniel,et al.
Calibration and electrical safety status of therapeutic ultrasound used by chiropractic physicians.
,
2003,
Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.