Genitourinary System Imaging with Low-Cost Portable Ultrasound Device in the Context of Telemedicine Implementation
Main Article Content
Keywords
Telemedicine, Tele-ultrasound, Portable ultrasound, Genitourinary system, Low-cost device, Low resource settings
Abstract
Background: The integration of digital diagnostic tools is essential for strengthening telemedicine infrastructure, particularly in remote and resource-limited settings. Ultrasound is a promising imaging modality because of its noninvasive disposition, absence of ionizing radiation, and ability to provide rapid, real-time diagnostic information. Among the wide range of ultrasound systems, cost-effective and portable devices with acceptable diagnostic performance are needed to improve accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a commercially available low-cost portable ultrasound device, with a specific focus on imaging the genitourinary (GU) system. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2022 and July 2023 and included 169 participants. Each participant underwent ultrasound examinations using both a low-cost portable ultrasound device and a conventional ultrasound machine, which served as the reference (gold) standard. The assessment included measurement of organ sizes and detecting pathological conditions in the kidneys, urinary bladder, uterus, ovaries, and prostate. Results: The portable ultrasound device demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting renal cysts (98.7%), uterine masses (97.2%), polycystic ovaries (98.7%), and adnexal cystic lesions (96.3%). Relatively lower accuracy was observed for the detection of renal parenchymal disease (93.7%) and ovarian enlargement (91.5%). Agreement between the portable and conventional devices for organ size measurements showed moderate to strong correlations. The coefficients of determination (r2) for bipolar lengths of the right and left kidneys, uterine length, and uterine anteroposterior diameter were 0.5907, 0.6345, 0.8637, and 0.8444, respectively. Conclusion: These findings suggest that low-cost portable ultrasound devices can provide acceptable performance for imaging of the GU system. Their integration into telemedicine and tele-ultrasound services could enhance diagnostic capabilities and improve access to essential imaging in resource-limited and underserved populations.
Downloads
Abstract 38 | PDF Downloads 10
References
2.Mann, D.M., Chen, J., Chunara, R., et al. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: evidence from the field. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(7):1132–1135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa072.
3.Chu, C., Cram, P., Pang, A., et al. Rural telemedicine use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: repeated cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(4):e26960. https://doi.org/10.2196/26960.
4.Ishfaq, R., Raja, U. Bridging the healthcare access divide: a strategic planning model for rural telemedicine network. Decision Sci. 2015;46(4):755–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12165.
5.Trippi, J.A., Lee, K.S., Kopp, G., et al. Emergency echocardiography telemedicine: an efficient method to provide 24-hour consultative echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27(7):1748–1752. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(96)00042-3.
6.Su, M.J., Ma, H.M., Ko, C.I., et al. Application of tele-ultrasound in emergency medical services. Telemed e-Health. 2008;14(8):816–824. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2008.0076.
7.Strode, C.A., Rubal, B.J., Gerhardt, R.T., et al. Satellite and mobile wireless transmission of focused assessment with sonography in trauma. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(12):1411–1414. https://doi.org/10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00547-5.
8.Huffer, L.L., Bauch, T.D., Furgerson, J.L., et al. Feasibility of remote echocardiography with satellite transmission and real-time interpretation to support medical activities in the austere medical environment. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17(6):670–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2004.03.021.
9.Otto, C., Hamilton, D.R., Levine, B.D., et al. Into thin air: extreme ultrasound on Mt Everest. Wilderness Environ Med . 2009;20(3):283–289. https://doi.org/10.1580/08-WEME-BR-228R2.1.
10.Nelson, B.P., Melnick, E.R., Li, J. Portable ultrasound for remote environments, part I: feasibility of field deployment. J Emerg Med. 2011;40(2):190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2009.09.006.
11.Rabbani, K.S., Al Amin, A., Tarafdar, Z., et al. Dhaka University telemedicine programme, targeting healthcare-deprived rural population of Bangladesh and other low resource countries. In HCI International 2019–Late Breaking Papers, Proceedings of the 21st HCI International Conference (HCII 2019), Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019:580–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30033-3_45.
12.Naznin, A., Kadir, M.A., Begum, F., Rabbani, K.S. Comparative performance of low-cost portable scanner in pregnancy profile ultrasonography: a promising adjunct to telemedicine. Global Clin Eng J. 2024;6(3):26–36. https://doi.org/10.31354/globalce.v6i3.200.
13.Lavi, A., Tzemah, S., Hussein, A., et al. A urologic stethoscope? Urologist performed sonography using a pocket-size ultrasound device in the point-of-care setting. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49:1513–1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1641-8.
14.Stock, K.F., Klein, B., Steubl, D., et al. Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination. Abdom. Imaging. 2015;40:2861–2866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0406-z.
15.Taus, P.J., Manivannan, S., Dancel, R. Bedside assessment of the kidneys and bladder using point of care ultrasound. POCUS J. 2022;7(Kidney):94. https://doi.org/10.24908/pocus.v7iKidney.15347.
16.Fröhlich, E., Beller, K., Muller, R., et al. Point of care ultrasound in geriatric patients: prospective evaluation of a portable handheld ultrasound device. Ultraschall in der Medizin (Eur J Ultrasound). 2020;41(03):308–316. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0889-8070.
17.Toscano, M., Szlachetka, K., Whaley, N., et al. Evaluating sensitivity and specificity of handheld point-of-care ultrasound testing for gynecologic pathology: a pilot study for use in low resource settings. BMC Med Imaging. 2020;20:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-00518-8.
18.Araujo, K.G., Adriana, Y., Machado, H.C., et al. Handheld ultrasound device in the assessment of the uterus and adnexa. 2024.https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4145952/v1.
19.SunBright. 2024. SUN-P1 type-C portable USB probes ultrasound. Available from: https://www.sunbright.shop/Factory-price-SUN-P1-type-C-portable-usb-probes-ultrasound-for-sale-8317?d=2.11.
20.Samsung. 2024. Accuvix A30. Available from: https://www.samsung.com/hk_en/support/model/USS-AV30F4U/WR/.
21.Le, M.P., Voigt, L., Nathanson, R., et al. Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users. Ultrasound J. 2022; 27(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6.
22.Barton, B., Peat, J. Medical Statistics: A Guide to SPSS, Data Analysis and Critical Appraisal. John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ; 2014, pp.317-328.
23.Watson, P.F., Petrie, A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73(9):1167–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003.
24.Tse, K.H., Luk, W.H., Lam, M.C. Pocket-size versus standard ultrasound machines in abdominal imaging. Singapore Med J. 2014;55(6):325. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2014078.
25.Zúñiga, M.Á., Palomino, T.V., Toro, M.A., et al. Diagnostic capacity of pocket-sized ultrasound devices at point of care by a non-radiologist resident in patients with suspected abdominal pathology. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(2):263–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.10.019.
26.Recker, F., Höhne, E., Damjanovic, D.,et al. Ultrasound in telemedicine: a brief overview. Appl Sci. 2022;12(3):958. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12030958
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author(s) must obtain all parties consent [co-author(s), others if applicable] and submit the acceptance of Copyright Agreement with their paper. Written permission must be obtained by the author for material that has been published in copyrighted material; this includes tables, figures, and quoted text that exceeds 150 words. A copy of all permissions must accompany the manuscript when published in copyrighted material. The author(s) hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. Author(s) must clearly indicate that approval for publication has been received in cases of institutional ownership.
In all submitted material authors retain all copyrights; however, the GlobalCE Journal reserve the right to reprint all or portions of the article and to post all or part of the article online. GlobalCE Journal reserves the right to edit manuscripts as required to publish in the journal. Authors are responsible for obtaining any and all clearances as appropriate. Unless stated otherwise, all articles are open-access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and original work (e.g. first published in the Global Clinical Engineering Journal) is properly cited with the original URL and bibliographic citation information. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on www.Globalce.org well as the copyright and license information must be included. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
