Optimizing Doppler Ultrasound Parameters: The Study of Insonation Angle, PRF, and Dynamic Range in Blood Flow Assessment

Authors

  • Sri Oktamuliani Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Andalas, Padang, 25163, Indonesia
  • Takuro Ishii Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Tohoku University, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan, Sendai, Japan
  • Yoshifumi Saijo Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Tohoku University, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan, Sendai, Japan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25077/jif.17.1.53-62.2025

Keywords:

Doppler Ultrasound , Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF), Nyquist Velocity, Dynamic Range , Aliasing

Abstract

Doppler ultrasound is critical in medical diagnostics for evaluating blood flow and detecting vascular conditions. Accurate blood flow velocity measurements depend on insonation angle, Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF), and dynamic range. This study optimizes these parameters to enhance Doppler ultrasound performance and diagnostic accuracy. A Xario-100 ultrasound machine and the Doppler 403TM flow phantom were used to evaluate the effects of insonation angle, PRF, and dynamic range on measurement accuracy. Insonation angles of 0o and 60o were tested to assess their impact on aliasing and precision. At 0o, significant aliasing occurred, while 90o, aliasing was minimized. PRF settings were adjusted from 14,000 Hz to 17,900 Hz, with higher PRF extending the Nyquist Velocity from 9.8 cm/s to 37.4 cm/s, reducing aliasing and improving high-flow measurement clarity in the dynamic range from 30 dB to 60 dB, with optimal contrast observed at 50 dB. Histogram analysis revealed a balanced pixel intensity distribution at 50 dB, enhancing the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). The findings demonstrate an insonation angle of 60o, at PRF 17,900 Hz, and a dynamic range of 50 dB optimal Doppler ultrasound performance. Standardizing these parameters can improve diagnostic accuracy, supporting better patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alhussein, M. (2024). Use of Real-Time Remote Tele-mentored Ultrasound Echocardiography for Cardiovascular Disease Diagnosis in Adults: A Systematic Review. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 50(6), 779–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2024.01.073

Azhari, H. (2012). Ultrasound: Medical Imaging and Beyond (An Invited Review). Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, 13(11), 2104–2116. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920112802502033

Browne, J. E. (2014). A review of Doppler ultrasound quality assurance protocols and test devices. Physica Medica, 30(7), 742–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.08.003

Campbell, K. A., Kupinski, A. M., Miele, F. R., Silva, P. F., & Zierler, R. E. (2021). Changes in Internal Carotid Artery Doppler Velocity Measurements With Different Angles of Insonation. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 40(9), 1937–1948. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15579

Ekroll, I. K., Swillens, A., Segers, P., Dahl, T., Torp, H., & Lovstakken, L. (2013). Simultaneous quantification of flow and tissue velocities based on multi-angle plane wave imaging. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 60(4), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2013.2621

Fish, P. J. (1999). Ultrasonic investigation of blood flow. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 213(3), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411991534898

Gauthier, T. P., Averkiou, M. A., & Leen, E. L. S. (2011). Perfusion quantification using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound: The impact of dynamic range and gain on time-intensity curves. Ultrasonics, 51(1), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2010.06.004

Gittins, J., & Martin, K. (2010). The Leicester Doppler Phantom—A Digital Electronic Phantom for Ultrasound Pulsed Doppler System Testing. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 36(4), 647–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.01.003

Goldstein, A. (1991). Performance tests of Doppler ultrasound equipment with a string phantom. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 10(3), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1991.10.3.125

Grazhdani, H., David, E., Ventura Spagnolo, O., Buemi, F., Perri, A., Orsogna, N., Gigli, S., & Chimenz, R. (2018). Quality assurance of ultrasound systems: current status and review of literature. Journal of Ultrasound, 21(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-018-0304-7

Grice, J. V., Pickens, D. R., & Price, R. R. (2016). Technical Note: A new phantom design for routine testing of Doppler ultrasound. Medical Physics, 43(7), 4431–4434. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4954205

Hoyos, C. V., Stuart, M. B., & Jensen, J. A. (2014). Increasing the dynamic range of synthetic aperture vector flow imaging. In J. G. Bosch & M. M. Doyley (Eds.), SPIE 9040, Medical Imaging 2014 (pp. 111–112). Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2043637

Iacob, R., Iacob, E. R., Stoicescu, E. R., Ghenciu, D. M., Cocolea, D. M., Constantinescu, A., Ghenciu, L. A., & Manolescu, D. L. (2024). Evaluating the role of breast ultrasound in early detection of breast cancer in low-and middle-income countries: A comprehensive narrative review. Bioengineering, 11(3), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11030262

Jackson, S. J., & Russell, S. (2019). A precise, reproducible method for measuring ultrasound probe slice thickness using a Gammex 403 phantom. Ultrasound, 27(3), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X19830742

Jawli, A., Aldehani, W., & Nabi, G. (2024). Tissue-Mimicking Material Fabrication and Properties for Multiparametric Ultrasound Phantoms : A Systematic Review. Bioengineering, 11(6), 620–635. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11060620

Karaböce, B., & Durmuş, H. O. (2024). Verification of Ultrasound Imaging Phantoms: An Evaluation Study. In A. Badnjević & L. Gurbeta Pokvić (Eds.), MEDICON CMBEBIH 2023 (pp. 120–131). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49068-2_14

Lentz, B., Fong, T., Rhyne, R., & Risko, N. (2021). A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in emergency care settings. The Ultrasound Journal, 13(16), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-021-00216-8

Logason, K., Bärlin, T., Jonsson, M.-L., Boström, A., Hårdemark, H. G., & Karacagil, S. (2001). The Importance of Doppler Angle of Insonation on Differentiation Between 50–69% and 70–99% Carotid Artery Stenosis. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 21(4), 311–313. https://doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.2001.1331

Martins, M. R., Martins, W. P., Soares, C. A. M., Miyague, A. H., Kudla, M. J., & Pavan, T. Z. (2018). Understanding the Influence of Flow Velocity, Wall Motion Filter, Pulse Repetition Frequency, and Aliasing on Power Doppler Image Quantification. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 37(1), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14338

Meiburger, K. M., Seoni, S., & Matrone, G. (2020). Automatic Dynamic Range Estimation for Ultrasound Image Visualization and Processing. 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IUS46767.2020.9251470

Mencarelli, M., Puggelli, L., Virga, A., Furferi, R., & Volpe, Y. (2024). Acoustic velocity and stability of tissue-mimicking echogenic materials for ultrasound training phantoms. Journal of Materials Science, 59(15), 6509–6524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-024-09610-8

Niederer, P. F. (2010). Ultrasound imaging and Doppler flow velocity measurement. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 18(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-2010-0587

Oglat, A. A. (2022). Performance Evaluation of an Ultrasonic Imaging System Using Tissue-Mimicking Phantoms for Quality Assurance. Biomimetics, 7(3), 130–157. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7030130

Okada, Y., Kanno, N., Bhatti, A., Ishii, T., & Saijo, Y. (2023). Robust flow vector estimation for echocardiography with extended Nyquist velocity using dual-PRF approach: a flow phantom study. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 62(SJ1033). https://doi.org/10.35848/1347-4065/acbda6

Paverd, C., Martin, A., Rominger, M., & Ruby, L. (2024). Assessment of Ultrasound Image Quality in a Reference Phantom Using Gel and Liquid Standoff Pads. WFUMB Ultrasound Open, 2(2), 100051–100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wfumbo.2024.100051

Phani, D., Varadarajulu, R. K., Paramanick, A., Paul, S., Paramu, R., Zacharia, G., Shaiju, V. S., Muraleedharan, V., Suheshkumar Singh, M., & Nair, R. K. (2024). Development and validation of a gel wax phantom to evaluate geometric accuracy and measurement of a hyperechoic target diameter in diagnostic ultrasound imaging. Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 47(1), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01362-0

Polak, J. F. (1995). Peripheral arterial disease: evaluation with color flow and duplex sonography. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 33(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(22)00563-2

Revzin, M. V., Imanzadeh, A., Menias, C., Pourjabbar, S., Mustafa, A., Nezami, N., Spektor, M., & Pellerito, J. S. (2019). Optimizing Image Quality When Evaluating Blood Flow at Doppler US: A Tutorial. RadioGraphics, 39(5), 1501–1523. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180055

Rindal, O. M. H., Austeng, A., Fatemi, A., & Rodriguez-Molares, A. (2019). The Effect of Dynamic Range Alterations in the Estimation of Contrast. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 66(7), 1198–1208. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2019.2911267

Russ, M. K., Lafata, N. M., Robertson, S. H., & Samei, E. (2023). Pulsed wave Doppler ultrasound: Accuracy, variability, and impact of acquisition parameters on flow measurements. Medical Physics, 50(11), 6704–6713. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16774

Shung, K. K. (2011). Diagnostic ultrasound: Past, present, and future. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, 31(6), 371–374. https://doi.org/10.5405/jmbe.871

Sultan, S. R., Alghamdi, A., Abdeen, R., & Almutairi, F. (2022). Evaluation of ultrasound point shear wave elastography reliability in an elasticity phantom. Ultrasonography, 41(2), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.21114

Sun Nuclear Corporation. (2020). Doppler 403TM & Mini-Doppler 1430TM Flow Phantoms Reliable, Reproducible System Velocity Testing. Sun Nuclear Corporation, 3–5.

Tsang, A. C. O., Lai, S. S. M., Chung, W. C., Tang, A. Y. S., Leung, G. K. K., Poon, A. K. K., Yu, A. C. H., & Chow, K. W. (2015). Blood flow in intracranial aneurysms treated with Pipeline embolization devices: computational simulation and verification with Doppler ultrasonography on phantom models. Ultrasonography, 34(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.14063

Yang, D. X. D., & El Gamal, A. (1999). Comparative analysis of SNR for image sensors with enhanced dynamic range. Sensors, Cameras, and Systems for Scientific/Industrial Applications, 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.347075

Zhou, X., Kenwright, D. A., Wang, S., Hossack, J. A., & Hoskins, P. R. (2017). Fabrication of Two Flow Phantoms for Doppler Ultrasound Imaging. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 64(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2016.2634919

Downloads

Published

2025-02-24

How to Cite

Oktamuliani, S., Ishii, T., & Saijo, Y. (2025). Optimizing Doppler Ultrasound Parameters: The Study of Insonation Angle, PRF, and Dynamic Range in Blood Flow Assessment. JURNAL ILMU FISIKA | UNIVERSITAS ANDALAS, 17(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.25077/jif.17.1.53-62.2025

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 1 (2025): March 2025

Section

Research Article

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Sri Oktamuliani, Takuro Ishii, Yoshifumi Saijo

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Please find the rights and licenses in JIF (Jurnal Ilmu Fisika).

1. License

The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

2. Author's Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).

3. User Rights

JIF's spirit is to disseminate articles published are as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, JIF permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only. Users will also need to attribute authors and JIF on distributing works in the journal.

4. Rights of Authors

Authors retain the following rights:

  • Copyright, and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
  • The right to use the substance of the article in future own works, including lectures and books,
  • The right to reproduce the article for own purposes, provided the copies are not offered for sale,
  • The right to self-archive the article.

5. Co-Authorship

If the article was jointly prepared by other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

6. Termination

This agreement can be terminated by the author or JIF upon two months's notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating party's notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of JIF.

7. Royalties

This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To such extent as legally permissible, the author waives his or her right to collect royalties relative to the article in respect of any use of the article by JIF or its sublicensee.

8. Miscellaneous

JIF will publish the article (or have it published) in the journal if the article's editorial process is successfully completed and JIF or its sublicensee has become obligated to have the article published. JIF may conform the article to a style of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing and usage that it deems appropriate. The author acknowledges that the article may be published so that it will be publicly accessible and such access will be free of charge for the readers.