LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for UVMFLOWNET Archives


UVMFLOWNET Archives

UVMFLOWNET Archives


UVMFLOWNET@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

UVMFLOWNET Home

UVMFLOWNET Home

UVMFLOWNET  January 2009

UVMFLOWNET January 2009

Subject:

Re: angles

From:

"Combs, Kristin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:18:13 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (49 lines)

Debbie-
Are there any new studies with velocity criterias for stenosis categories using angles less than 60 Degrees?

________________________________

From: UVM Flownet on behalf of Debbie Anderson
Sent: Tue 1/27/2009 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: angles



Kristy, here is a note from Frank Miele...    The 60 degree angle is a ubiquitous dilemma.  A few pieces of information might help clarify. 

It is important to realize that 60 degrees is a very suboptimal angle for Doppler in terms of errors and artifacts.  According to Doppler theory, it should not matter what angle is used since angle correction can be employed.  This theoretical assumption is false since it ignores the fact that there is always error in specifying the Doppler angle (no one can place the flow indicator exactly in the true direction of flow all of the time) and that there are many artifacts that are angle dependent.  Since the Doppler Effect is affected by the cosine of the Doppler angle, and since the cosine is very non-linear with angle, the error associated with the Doppler angle is also very non-linear.  The worst Doppler angle is clearly 90 degrees at which there is infinite error and no amount of angle correction can "fix" the problem.  The best angle is 0 or 180 degrees (the cosine changes very slowly around 0 and 180 degrees - if you know calculus it is determined by the first derivative (the slope)).  One thing is for sure, angles greater than 60 degrees yield horrendous error and should be avoided as much as possible.  However, 60 degrees is not very good either.  50 degrees is certainly better than 60 degrees, and of course 40 degrees is better still.  Additionally, artifacts such as spectral spread are exacerbated with larger angles, again leading to the conclusion that angles smaller than 60 degrees are better.  (Note that for carotid studies, at 60 degrees, spectral broadening can sometimes result in an overestimation of the peak velocity by as much as 50%.)

So how then did 60 degrees become a standard?   The answer is related to what was practical.  In the early days before electronic steering, "steering" was manual.  Since vessels tend to be parallel to the skin surface, the worst possible situation for Doppler existed unless the transducer was manually angled (without manually angling the probe, an angle of 90 degrees would result, yielding no Doppler information).  As it turns out, the transducer can be manually angled about 30 degrees while maintaining good skin contact and still be before the point of actually having to push so hard as to affect flow in the vessel being assessed.  If the steering angle is 30 degrees, the resulting Doppler insonification angle (Doppler angle) is 60 degrees.  Furthermore, in the early days, spectral analysis was not performed (this was well before the days of applying Fast Fourier Transforms with slick DSP chips) and velocity information was not presented.  Instead, the detected frequency shift was presented.  As it turns out, the cosine of 60 degrees is 0.5, which when used in the denominator of the calculation to correct for the angular effect, is simply a factor of 2, a factor that anyone can mathematically apply in their head.  

The standard then became 5 MHz transducers at 60 degree Doppler angles.  The correlations were performed using this standard.  Now move ahead to the point at which electronic steering was created. The question was what angle should now be used.  Initially, many systems had very limited steering, so maintaining a 60 degree angle within a patient, let alone from patient to patient, was challenging, but usually "doable."  Since all the correlations were at 60 degrees, the 60 degree criterion was preserved.  

Now move ahead to modern times.  Most systems now can achieve angles better than 60 degrees pretty routinely.  So why continue to use 60 degrees?  Quite often the answer is historic.  Since that was the standard, many people now mistakenly believe that 60 degrees gives the best Doppler.  In contrast, many labs now recommend a range of 45 to 60 degrees (a very acceptable practice).  There is a reason that many give for specifying a range and not just specifying 60 or less.  That argument is associated with repeatability. The goal is to maintain repeatability in how studies are performed both within a lab and from lab to lab.  From a mathematical standpoint, this argument is not completely true since the error bands associated with 0 to 60 degrees are encompassed within the error bands associated with 45 to 60 degrees.  Furthermore, with vessel tortuosity, often times maintaining a 60 degree angle is almost impossible and often leads to the use of suboptimal views and steering angles.  In these cases, the correct answer is to use the lower angle and make a note.  The interpreter should already be acutely aware of potential velocity variations (acceleration effects) associated with the tortuosity.  The best position nowadays is probably to try to maintain angles between 45 and 50 degrees, realizing that there will be times when larger or smaller angles will just make more sense.  Of course, you should always perform correlation studies to show that your Doppler measurements are consistent with the current gold standard. 

Debbie K. Anderson 
Pegasus Lectures, Inc. 
972.668.1842 (direct line) 
[log in to unmask] 

________________________________

From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kristy Peeler
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: angles

 

I work in a small city with a new ultrasound program at the university. There is also a new vascular ultrasound program with students rotating through my lab.  I am finding these students are being taught that the angle of insonation should be 60 degrees and nothing else no matter how the vessel is coursing. My students are telling me that he other surgeons' lab and the general US depts. in the 2 hospitals also incorporate this same school of thought.  For me, it has always been 60 degrees or less. Is this common practice in other communities? I would appreciate your feedback.

 

Kristy

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any accompanying data or files is confidential and may contain privileged information intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that the dissemination, distribution, and or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at the email address above, delete this email from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately.  Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager