Secondary Logo

Journal Logo


Physics, Clinical Applications, and Risks

Lu, Jing1,2; Chen, Min3; Chen, Qiong-Hua1; Wu, Qin1; Jiang, Jin-Na1; Leung, Tak-Yeung2,*

Section Editor(s): Pan, Yang; Shi, Dan-Dan

doi: 10.1097/FM9.0000000000000024

The tissue stiffness is always an interesting issue to clinicians. Traditionally, it is assessed by the manual palpation, and this now can be measured by the ultrasound-based elastography. The basic physics is based on Young's modulus through the Hooke's law: E= S/e, where the Young's modulus (E) equals to the stress applied to the object (S) divided by the generated strain (e). With the rapid advancement of technology, the elastography has evolved from quasi-static elastography (ie, strain elastography) to dynamic elastography (i,e, shear wave elastography). The key differentiation of these two categories roots in the stimuli applied, namely mechanical or acoustic radiation force, and the response of the soft tissue. The strain elastography requires the operator to compress and decompress the tissue manually and the motion of the tissue during the stimuli is tracked to calculate the strain to reflect the tissue stiffness. While strain elastography is operator-dependent, shear wave elastography is not. Using shear wave elastography, the tissue is stimulated by the acoustic radiation force which can generate shear wave traveling through the tissue transversely. The shear wave propagation speed (Vs) is related to the shear modulus (μ) of the medium: μ = ρVs2, where ρ is the density of the tissue and assumed to be a constant as 1000 kg/m3. In the incompressible biological tissue, the Young's modulus is approximately three times the shear modulus (E3 μ). So the quantitative measurements of the tissue stiffness can be attained by shear wave elastography. The clinical application of elastography and its diagnostic capability has been extended. The knowledge of the basic physics of the various type of elastography facilitates the effective use of elastography. This review presented the clinical application and the risks of different types of elastography.

1Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen 361000, China

2Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China

3Department of Fetal Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510000, China.

Corresponding author: Prof. Tak-Yeung Leung, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China. E-mail:

Received July 19, 2019

Online date: October 15, 2019

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Back to Top | Article Outline


For centuries manual palpation of the tissue has served as an indispensable diagnostic tool in the medical practice. By touching and feeling the tissue stiffness using clinicians’ hands, it allows the detection and differentiation of the lesions or diseases accompanied by the changing mechanical properties. In the recent two decades, this ancient art of diagnostic tool derived a new life by incorporating the elastic assessment tool into the imaging system from 1990s.1–7 This new medical imaging modality, named elastography, maps the mechanical properties or elasticity of the tissue using ultrasonographic methods to analyze the tissue motion. In other word, it provides a noninvasive evaluation of the tissue stiffness in vivo based on the close relationship between the mechanical property and macro-structure of the soft tissue.4 Though a wide variety of parameters can reflect the mechanical properties of the tissue, such as Young's modulus, shear modulus, bulk compressional modulus, Poisson's ratio, viscosity, anisotrophy, and heterogeneity indices, and so on, a grossly simplified physical parameter, that is, Young's modulus is sufficient in most practical cases to characterize the biomechanical property of the soft tissue.4 The Young's modulus (E) or shear elastic modulus (μ) are described by the terms “elasticity,” “stiffness,” or “hardness,” which are the most corresponding to the manual palpation.4

With the rapid advancement of technology, the elastography has evolved from quasi-static elastography to dynamic elastography.7 The key differentiation of these two categories roots in the stimuli applied, namely mechanical or acoustic radiation force, and the response of the soft tissue.8 These two distinct types of elastography have many different concrete techniques on different commercially available ultrasound machines. Each of these techniques though works in a different way, they follow the same basic principle that is inducing a motion or a deformation in the tissue by an external or internal stress or force, observing how the tissue responses during the tissue motion and consequently inferring the mechanical property of the tissue.4,8

The quasi-static elastography is also called strain elastography, which is a pioneering technique of elastography. As its name indicated, this technique uses the strain value to reflect the mechanical property of the tissue, that is the deformation rate of the tissue when a constant external stress applied to it.9 The basic physics is based on Young's modulus through the Hooke's law: E = S/e, where the Young's modulus (E) equals to the stress applied to the object (S) divided by the generated strain (e) (Fig. 1).7,10 Under the same external force, a soft tissue will have a greater strain compared with hard tissue, so that a larger strain value indicates a soft tissue and vice versa.

Figure 1

Figure 1

To perform a strain elastography, the operator needs to manually compress and decompress the tissue regularly and cyclically using the transducer. The ultrasound machine can track the motion of the tissue across the time of stimuli to calculate the strain. This strain value is influenced by two factors: the external force and the distance to the source of the force exerted. First, greater force could generate a lager extent of deformation in the tissue and it is not easy to standardize the external force exerted by different operators. Some authors arbitrarily and subjectively defined the compression as 1 cm advancement of the transvaginal probe towards the cervix and each cycle of compression and decompression lasting for about 1 second.11 But despite all this, the reproducibility of the measurement was poor in the area directly receiving the compression and decompression.11,12 Second, the stress conducted to the tissue will decrease with the increasing distance, indicating that the area far away from the transducer will have a smaller deformation due to less stress received even for a homogenous stiff tissue, just like compressing a sponge.2 The strain elastography has been widely used in the tumor assessment, where the strain of the solid mass can be compared with the surrounding normal tissue with the equal depth to the transducer. However, this is not the case when evaluating the normal cervix, where no reference tissue can be used for comparison.11 In other word, the assessment by the strain elastography only reflects strain distribution among different areas of the cervix and thus cannot be used to quantify the cervical ripeness.11 To quantitatively measure the stiffness of the cervix by strain elastography, Hee et al. developed a synthetic reference material made of silicone and oil with known Young's moduli interpositioned between the cervix and the transvaginal transducer and this was applied to predict the cervical dilation time prior to the induction of labor.10,11

To standardize the external force, another technique of elastography adopts tissue Doppler imaging tool where a maximum compression of the anterior cervical lip is applied by means of transvaginal probe until no further decreasing of the anteroposterior diameter can be observed.13 But this technique has been criticized to be not only causing the cervical deformation, but also dislocation under such an amount of compression, as well as a merely reflection of maximum cervical deformability, rather than a real stiffness of the cervix.14 To avoid the major disadvantage of the strain elastography, that is the operator-dependency, techniques relying on the endogenous motion have been developed. In which, the tissue motion is generated by the patients’ breathing movement and inherent arterial pulsation.15,16 Ordinal scores are assigned to different areas according to the elastographic colored map, with lower score indicating stiff tissue and vice versa. Nevertheless, the quasi-static elastography still cannot measure the stiffness of the tissue in absolute values, but only a qualitative or semiquantitative assessment tool at most. Though oscillatory compression to the tissue is required, it is too slow so that it is still considered to be “quasi-static”.17

By contrast, only the quantitative assessment of the tissue elasticity needs the generation of shear waves, which requires the dynamic force. Instead of inducing the tissue movement by an external force, a special ultrasound beam induced acoustic radiation force, which is a time-varying force is used to disturb the tissue.18 The generated micro-scale movement is tracked dynamically, that is the propagation of the mechanical wave in the tissue, to deduce the elasticity of the tissue. The mechanical wave can travel in the tissue as a longitudinal compressional wave (parallel to the propagation) or a transverse shear wave (perpendicular to the propagation). Whereas the longitudinal wave is used for conventional ultrasound imaging, the shear wave propagation speed (Vs) is related to the shear modulus (μ) of the medium: μ = ρVs2, where ρ is the density of the tissue and assumed to be a constant as 1000 kg/m3.7 In the incompressible biological tissue, the Young's modulus is approximately three times the shear modulus (E≈3 μ), which thus can be quantitated by measuring the shear wave propagation speed (Fig. 2). The tissue stiffness measured by shear wave elastography (SWE )can be expressed as either shear wave propagation speed in m/s, or Young's modulus in kPa.9 Different manufactures have developed several techniques based on the dynamic elastography, including acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging, transient elastography (TE), and SWE imaging.

Figure 2

Figure 2

(1) ARFI technique emits short-duration focused ultrasound beam into a small localized area at a certain depth in the tissue, and consequently causes tiny displacement (μm) of the targeted area along the axis of the ultrasound beam which can be tracked by the ultrasonic correlation-based algorithms.19 The targeted tissue stiffness is inversely proportional to the ARFI-induced displacement magnitude, so that the displacement across the time of stimuli of ARFI including the maximum displacement, the time to reach the maximum displacement and the relaxation time of the total recovery from the displacement are used to calculate the elasticity for the focal area.8,19,20

(2) TE, a variant of SWE, shear wave is generated by an external vibrator fixed on the transducer. Therefore, TE is also known as vibration-controlled elastography.21 The dynamic vibration at the surface of the tissue produces axial shear wave at the interface of the transducer and the tissue which travels along the ultrasound plane. The tissue motion is tracked using the cross-correlation method by tracing the ultrasound speckles in consecutive ultrasound raw data to reconstruct the shear wave propagation movie. Both one-dimensional TE and two-dimensional TE have been developed.4,7 In the one-dimensional TE, the vibration frequency is as low as 50 Hz, with the frame rate of the tracking ultrasound more than 1000 per second. By comparison, the two-dimensional TE extends to perform the ultrafast imaging by developing a programmable ultrasound electronic device and the raw data are acquired with a frame rate over 5000 per second. But the ultrafast ultrasound imaging electronic device is very heavy and bulky, preventing its general use in practice.22

(3) SWE, similar to the ARFI, imposes the acoustic radiation force to disturb the tissue. Unlike ARFI detecting the axial motion, SWE uses the induced shear wave which travels laterally from the focused ultrasound beam. The ARFI is comparable to a “virtual figure” that can palpate the tissue interiorly, which is potentially superior to the palpation of the body surface. (a) point SWE: a short duration of ARFI is emitted at a fixed depth, a point measurement of the shear wave speed at the localized region of interest can be made.19 It is also known as ARFI quantification, but no elastographic color map can be generated. (b) Two-dimensional SWE (2D SWE): multiple ARFI are emitted at different depths to generate stronger shear waves, where elastographic color map is applicable.10,17 The term “SWE” specifically refers to “2D SWE” in many literatures.17 Supersonic shear imaging (SSI) is one of the most sophisticated techniques of 2D SWE by the combination of two core techniques, the Mach cone (pushing mode) and ultrafast imaging (imaging mode). With the SSI, successive focused ultrasound beams are emitted at different depths in the tissue. Each focused ultrasound beam will generate a weak shear wave and the Mach cone is formed by coherently summing all the single shear waves. With the formation of Mach cone, SSI can amplify the shear waves amplitude as well as increase their propagation distance, while minimizing the acoustic output power. The nomenclature “Supersonic” is termed attributed to a super high speed of the ultrasound beam emission, even faster than the generation of the shear wave. This supersonic source efficiently improves the efficiency of shear wave generation by a factor 4 to 8 compare with a non-supersonic source for a fixed acoustic power at a given depth.23 Realizing the sufficient shear wave generation, another technical challenge of SSI is how to capture the generated shear waves, which will totally cross an average ultrasound image plane in 10 to 20 milliseconds. The general frame rate of the modern ultrasound equipment is only approximately 50 frames per seconds, and 1/50 of a second is too long to capture the propagating shear waves before they disappear. The ultrafast imaging is able to reach ultrafast frame rate of thousands of frames per second, allowing the capture of the fleeting shear wave propagation.23 The main differences between strain elastography and SWE are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1

The unabated technical innovation grants the elastography remarkable breakthrough. The knowledge of the basic physics of the various type of elastography facilitates the effective use of elastography. Using SWE, the most advanced elastography, the quantitative measurements of the tissue stiffness can be acquired without operator-dependency. The clinical application of elastography and its diagnostic capability has also been extended.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Clinical application

With the evolution from strain elastography to SWE, the application is not only limited to the superficial organs, but extending to the deeper tissue. So far various organs have been assessed by elastography, including liver, prostate, thyroid, lymph nodes, skin, cervix, and musculoskeletal diseases. The elastography is designed to evaluate the tissue stiffness in vivo, which is determined by its constitution and structural arrangement of the macromolecules which is altered in many pathological conditions. Compared with magnetic resonance-based elastography, the ultrasound-based elastography is much easier to perform, more convenient, more widely available and much cost-effective.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Differentiation of benign and malignant lesions

The earliest and the mot comment use for elastography is to assist the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. Many studies have shown improved sensitivity and specificity in detecting the breast malignant masses with strain elastography, compared to the conventional ultrasound imaging, even for those smaller than 1 cm lesions.24–28 Raza et al. demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.7% and a specificity of 85.8% for breast nodular lesion differentiation using strain elastography.29 With SWE, high mean stiffness value is associated with poorer prognostic features, such as advanced histologic grade, large infiltration size, tumor classification, lymph node metastasis and vascular invasion.30–32

A large number of studies have investigated the usefulness of elastography in discriminating thyroid tumors.33–37 A meta-analysis demonstrated that the strain elastography has a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 90% in the diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules, which is comparable to the fine needle aspiration.38 But a very recent study demonstrated that thyroid imaging reporting and data system alone, based on a constellation of suspicious grey-scale ultrasound features, is superior to the strain elastography in the prediction of malignant thyroid nodules and the clinical relevance of the strain elastography is negligible.39 In the malignant thyroid nodules, the shear wave travels significantly faster than in either normal thyroid tissue or benign nodules.33,40 However, for the thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology, SWE failed to differentiate between benign and malignant nodules.41 Several factors can influence the discriminative ability of elastography in thyroid tumors. The cystic nodules have more liquid tissue elasticity,42,43 making the strain elastography unsuitable for the evaluation. The undistinguishable nodules or the multinodular goiter cannot be evaluated by the strain elastography.44 Nodules of large size (>2 cm), cystic components and calcification, which is not uncommon in thyroid nodules, can also impact the performance of SWE.43,45 In addition, the close proximity of thyroid gland to the pulsatile carotid artery can cause a compression-decompression effect on thyroid, which can lead to inaccurate assessment of the elastography.46

The diagnostic ability of elastography in prostate cancer has also intrigued numerous researchers due to the low specificity of prostate-specific antigen and the low sensitivity of biopsy.47 Compared with grey-scale ultrasound, strain elastography can significantly improve the detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extracapsular extension.48 Strain elastography is more sensitive in the detection of apical and middle prostate lesions, whereas magnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive in the transitional and basal parts of the prostate.49–51 Current studies reported sensitivities of 51%–75.4% and specificities of 72%–83.3% for the detection of prostate cancer by strain elastography.48,52,53 However, the interobserver variability of manual compression-decompression strength resulted in artifacts in around one-third of the cases.54 SWE can achieve a sensitivity of 96.2% and a specificity of 96.2% in detecting prostate cancer.55 Elastography guided prostate biopsy is a valuable tool which can significantly improve the detection of prostate cancer than systemic biopsy, while requiring fewer cores sample.56–58 It should be aware that benign pathologies, such as prostatitis, fibrosis, atrophy, benign prostate hypertrophy and adenomyomatosis may present an increased stiffness, which makes them difficult to distinguish from prostate cancer.59

Back to Top | Article Outline

Liver fibrosis and cirrhosis

As a noninvasive method for liver stiffness assessment, TE is the first to be used in the field and this technique is mainly developed by the manufacturer EchoSens, with the trademark name of FibroScan. Studies have shown FibroScan has excellent correlation with staging of liver fibrosis, and is a reliable tool for the detection of liver cirrhosis,21,60–64 but less accurate on the discrimination of mild fibrosis from moderate and severe cirrhosis.65–68 A review including over 1100 patients concluded the ARFI elastography is more reliable than TE.69 Recently, SWE, SSI to be specific, has been applied in the live fibrosis evaluation.70,71 The results revealed that SWE significantly improved the detection of significant fibrosis compared with TE,71 and was superior to the liver fibrosis indices.72 Moreover, SWE outperforms TE in terms of being able to guide the location of measurement due to its real time nature which allows visualizing the anatomical structure and stiffness information simultaneously.71

Back to Top | Article Outline

Preterm birth

During the pregnancy, the cervix undergoes dynamic remodeling of the collagen fibrillar network and increased water content and glycosaminoglycans in the extracellular matrix, which leads to the softening and ripening of the cervix.73–79 This can be reflected by the change in cervical elastic properties, and SWE can quantitatively detect this softening process across the gestation (Fig. 3).80 Preterm birth still remains a big challenge in the obstetric practice and is accountable for three-quarters of the neonatal deaths.81 To identify high risk patients in advance is desirable and is still a main challenge. The microstructure reorganization may be a prelude to the shortening of the cervix.82 Previous studies have shown that greater strain in the internal os83,84 or the anterior cervix lip85 is associated with a higher risk of preterm delivery. But none of them can measure the cervical elasticity in absolute value. Agarwal et al. demonstrated that the shear wave velocity performs better than either elastography index derived by ARFI or Bishop score in the prediction of preterm birth, with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 90%.86

Figure 3

Figure 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Induction of labor

Cervical assessment is essential before the induction of labor and this is now performed by digital vaginal examination of Bishop score,87 which is notoriously known as subjective. As mentioned above, elastography is able to offer the information of the cervical elastic property which is indictive of cervical ripening, one of the elements in Bishop score. Several studies have used elastography to generate objective assessment of the cervical softness, and proved its usefulness in the prediction of successful induction of labor.13,15,79–90 However, all these studies adopted the strain based elastography, which is diminished by the lack of quantitative measurements of cervical elasticity.

Back to Top | Article Outline


With the increasing utilization of elastography in superficial organs, that is, breast and thyroid, researchers have employed this new tool in the evaluation of skin lesions.91 Recently, Botar et al. have demonstrated the combination of very-high-frequency ultrasound, power Doppler ultrasound, and real-time strain elastography offered comprehensive information for the preoperative evaluation of cutaneous melanoma.92,93 Dasgeb et al.,94 Magarelli et al.,95 and Nakajima et al.96 have concluded that elastography is a valuable tool to help differentiate between benign and malignant skin lesions. But the softness of the skin lesions alters with the lesion size, which is a factor impacting the differential accuracy of the elastography.96 Additionally, as a relatively new method in the evaluation of the skin lesions, more studies are needed to validate the efficiency of the elastography.97

Back to Top | Article Outline

Musculoskeletal disease

Both strain elastography98 and SWE99 have been shown usefulness in determining the severity of various musculoskeletal disease as well as the follow-up of treatment, including tendons, muscles, nerves, and ligaments. Among these structures, Achilles tendon was the first and the most investigated area. With the strain elastography, the normal Achilles tendons appear to be either homogeneous with stiff structures or inhomogeneous with considerable soft tissues, which is not in accordance with the findings on conventional ultrasound.100–102 However, limited study showed that Achilles tendons are homogeneously hard by SWE.103 Further studies are warranted in view of the inconsistent observations. The advent of SWE has brought about exponential increase in the investigation of skeletal muscles due to the ability to display muscle stiffness in real time during the muscle relaxation and contraction.104 The change in muscle stiffness is a primary indicator for many condition, such as injury, aging, exercise-induced muscle damage, myopathy, muscle spasticity, and spastic cerebral palsy.105–111 Recently, the investigation of elastography has extended to the evaluation of plantar fasciitis,112 congenital muscular torticollis.113

Back to Top | Article Outline

Potential risk

Diagnostic ultrasound has been applied into the clinical use for more than five decades without harmful events reported.114 However, the ultrasound is not without risks and can cause biological effects — the thermal and mechanical effects to the tissue.115

The thermal effect, a rise in temperature of the tissue, is the result of the absorbtion and convertion of the ultrasound wave into the heat energy.116 To estimate the relative risk of the thermal bioeffect, the thermal index (TI) is calculated, which is a ratio between the acoustic power exposing the tissue and power required for 1°C increase anywhere in the beam.117,118 It provides users with a rough instructions in terms of the probable maximum temperature increase during ultrasound wave exposure in a particular imaging mode. Many factors could influence the risk of thermal effects. Different tissues have different absorption coefficients of the ultrasound beam. The fluid has the lowest absorption coefficient whereas the bone has the highest one; the soft tissue has an in-between coefficient.116 The TI should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) especially when fetuses are scanned, because the fetuses are susceptible to the exposure to various physical stressors due to the developing embryonic and fetal tissues, particularly in the early trimester.119,120 Therefore, there is strict guidelines for the safe use of ultrasound in obstetrics to follow.114 The risk of thermal bioeffect is also dependent on the duration of exposure.114 The longer the exposure time, the greater the risk is.114 The recommended restrict time is 30 minutes for 1.0< TI (bone) ≤1.5.114 The TI increases from 0.0 to 0.9–1.1 after the SWE modality activated of the SE 12-3 transvaginal transducer. Though the TI of SWE is lower than the recommended criteria, it may not be appropriate or valid to be applied in the SWE, because the TI is a steady state estimates while the SWE is generated by the ultra-fast repetitive of short-duration focused acoustic pulses.115,118 So far no specific risk indicator unique to ARFI has been developed yet, but the duration of the SWE should be kept as less as possible to reduce the thermal stress to the targeted tissue.

The mechanical effect is mainly seen in tissues with stable gas bubbles such as lungs, intestines, and the use of contrast, as a result of radiation force, acoustic streaming, and cavitation effect.121 Cavitation is a resultant phenomenon of the pulsating motion of the gas bubble, caused by the alternating expansion and contraction of the bubble in a varying pressure of the ultrasonic energy field.122 Similar as the thermal effect, the mechanical index (MI) is used to assess the likelihood of cavitation. It describes the relationship between the peak acoustic pressure and the center frequency of the ultrasound beam.123 There is no absolute threshold of MI above which the cavitation will definitely occur, but a higher MI indicates a higher risk of the likelihood of the occurrence of cavitation hazard. The absence of gas in obstetrics makes the mechanical effect less relevant during the scan.121 The MI should be kept as low as possible when examining fetuses as the bioeffects in the form of radiation force, acoustic streaming which is not related to gas bubbles may also occur. The MI of the push pulse generated by SWE is less 1.9, the limit determined by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and is consistent with that of color Doppler imaging.

So far, FDA has not yet approved the application of SWE in human fetuses due to the potential risk concerns of SWE to the developing fetuses and the lack of literature reporting an ascertaining risk in this field.124 The major safety concern is the high power of the acoustic push pulse. For the exposure of the fetuses to the routine ultrasound, FDA recommends a maximum spatial peak temporal average intensity of 720 mW/cm2 and maximum MI of 1.9.125 But these criteria may not be extrapolated to the SWE because they are time-averaged indices and do not capture orders of magnitude higher mechanical energy peaks concentrated within a few microseconds.126 The duration of the acoustic push pulse is 1 μs in routine color Doppler ultrasound settings, while the duration is 200 μs and 300 μs under the ARFI setting.127 Nevertheless, Herman et al found that the ARFI caused transient temperature rise might still be within the permitted safe ranges determined by the FDA.128 For current clinical implementations, the transducer heating during ARFI imaging is less than 1 °C and, therefore, ARFI imaging of soft tissue is safe if the TI is properly monitored.129 However, there is a debate with respect to whether the hyperthermal teratologic effects is simply determined by a threshold or linearity kinetics.128,130 In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the safety of ultrasound radiation force, future studies are warranted.

In spite of unavailable data of SWE in the human fetuses, reassuring results are derived from premature infants as well as animal experiments. Quarello et al. demonstrated the possibility and feasibility of using SWE in fetal baboons in exploring fetal organs, where SWE values were relevant to different organs.131 For the premature human neonates, Alison et al. applied SWE in those delivered between gestational 26–31 weeks due to intrauterine growth restriction and demonstrated that SWE measurement is feasible and reproducible.132 Su et al. quantitatively assessed the brain stiffness using ARFI and found significantly higher elasticity in full-term neonates compared with preterm neonates.133 Both studies did not report adverse outcomes regarding the use of SWE/ARFI in premature neonates. Li et al. further explored the immediate and long-term impacts of dynamic radiation force exposure (SWE) on neonatal mice's brain. The result revealed neither detectable histological changes, nor the long-term effect on the mice's learning and memory abilities, although the cellular signaling pathway was disturbed when the duration of SWE scanning exceeded 30 minutes.134 The cochlea and semicircular canals are delicate structures that may be very sensitive to the mechanical pulsatile vibration caused by SWE.135 A follow up for 4 years of a small cohort which underwent SWE cervical scan during the pregnancy indicated that no hypoacusis was attributed by prenatal SWE cervical examination.126

In short, the strain elastography and transient SWE by generated by the external vibrator have exactly the same risk considerations as the conventional ultrasound imaging.17 The radiation force based elastography (ARFI, SWE) though involves higher TI, it is still within limits set by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and risk considerations are similar to the Doppler imaging mode.17,136–138

Back to Top | Article Outline



Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of Interest


Back to Top | Article Outline


[1]. Gao L, Parker KJ, Lerner RM, et al Imaging of the elastic properties of tissue–a review. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996;22(8):959–977. doi:10.1016/s0301-5629(96)00120-2.
[2]. Ophir J, Alam SK, Garra B, et al Elastography: ultrasonic estimation and imaging of the elastic properties of tissues. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1999;213(3):203–233. doi: 10.1243/0954411991534933.
[3]. Greenleaf JF, Fatemi M, Insana M. Selected methods for imaging elastic properties of biological tissues. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2003;5(1):57–78. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.5.040202.121623.
[4]. Sarvazyan A, Hall TJ, Urban MW, et al An overview of elastography - AN emerging branch of medical imaging. Curr Med Imaging Rev 2011;7(4):255–282. doi:10.2174/157340511798038684.
[5]. Parker KJ, Doyley MM, Rubens DJ. Imaging the elastic properties of tissue: the 20 year perspective. Phys Med Biol 2011;56(1):R1–R11. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/1/R01.
[6]. Doyley MM. Model-based elastography: a survey of approaches to the inverse elasticity problem. Phys Med Biol 2012;57(3):R35–R73. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/3/R35.
[7]. Gennisson JL, Deffieux T, Fink M, et al Ultrasound elastography: principles and techniques. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013;94(5):487–495. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.01.022.
[8]. Li GY, Cao Y. Mechanics of ultrasound elastography. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 2017;473(2199):20160841. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0841.
[9]. Dietrich CF, Barr RG, Farrokh A, et al Strain elastography - how to do it? Ultrasound Int Open 2017;3(4):E137–E149. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-119412.
[10]. Sigrist RMS, Liau J, Kaffas AE, et al Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications. Theranostics 2017;7(5):1303–1329. doi: 10.7150/thno.18650.
[11]. Molina FS, Gómez LF, Florido J, et al Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(6):685–689. doi: 10.1002/uog.11067.
[12]. Franchi-abella S, Elie C, Correas J. Ultrasound elastography: advantages, limitations and artefacts of the different techniques from a study on a phantom. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013;94(5):497–501. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.01.024.
[13]. Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Fröhlich C, et al Quantitative elastography of the cervix for predicting labor induction success. Ultraschall Med 2015;36(1):65–73. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1355572.
[14]. Mazza E, Parra-Saavedra M, Bajka M, et al In vivo assessment of the biomechanical properties of the uterine cervix in pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 2014;34(1):33–41. doi: 10.1002/pd.4260.
[15]. Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38(1):52–56. doi: 10.1002/uog.9021.
[16]. Pereira S, Frick AP, Poon LC, et al Successful induction of labor: prediction by preinduction cervical length, angle of progression and cervical elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;44(4):468–475. doi: 10.1002/uog.13411.
[17]. Bamber J, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF, et al EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med 2013;34(2):169–184. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1335205.
[18]. Nowicki A, Dobruch-Sobczak K. Introduction to ultrasound elastography. J Ultrason 2016;16(65):113–124. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2016.0013.
[19]. Nightingale K, Soo MS, Nightingale R, et al Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: in vivo demonstration of clinical feasibility. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002;28(2):227–235. doi:10.1016/s0301-5629(01)00499-9.
[20]. Palmeri ML, McAleavey SA, Fong KL, et al Dynamic mechanical response of elastic spherical inclusions to impulsive acoustic radiation force excitation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2006;53(11):2065–2079. doi:10.1109/tuffc.2006.146.
[21]. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, et al Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29(12):1705–1713. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.07.001.
[22]. Bercoff J, Chaffai S, Tanter M, et al In vivo breast tumor detection using transient elastography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29(10):1387–1396. doi:10.1016/s0301-5629(03)00978-5.
[23]. Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M. Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2004;51(4):396–409. doi:10.1109/tuffc.2004.1295425.
[24]. Lee JH, Kim SH, Kang BJ, et al Role and clinical usefulness of elastography in small breast masses. Acad Radiol 2011;18(1):74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.07.014.
[25]. Leong LC, Sim LS, Lee YS, et al A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound. Clin Radiol 2010;65(11):887–894. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.06.008.
[26]. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Weber S, et al Multicenter study of ultrasound real-time tissue elastography in 779 cases for the assessment of breast lesions: improved diagnostic performance by combining the BI-RADS®-US classification system with sonoelastography. Ultraschall Med 2010;31(5):484–491. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245282.
[27]. Regini E, Bagnera S, Tota D, et al Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules. Preliminary experience with 120 lesions. Radiol Med 2010;115(4):551–562. doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0518-z.
[28]. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006;239(2):341–350. doi:10.1148/radiol.2391041676.
[29]. Raza S, Odulate A, Ong EM, et al Using real-time tissue elastography for breast lesion evaluation: our initial experience. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29(4):551–563. doi: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.4.551.
[30]. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al Invasive breast cancer: relationship between shear-wave elastographic findings and histologic prognostic factors. Radiology 2012;263(3):673–677. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111317.
[31]. Athanasiou A, Tardivon A, Tanter M, et al Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging--preliminary results. Radiology 2010;256(1):297–303. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10090385.
[32]. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12(6):R104. doi: 10.1186/bcr2787.
[33]. Friedrich-Rust M, Romenski O, Meyer G, et al Acoustic radiation force impulse-imaging for the evaluation of the thyroid gland: a limited patient feasibility study. Ultrasonics 2012;52(1):69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2011.06.012.
[34]. Hong Y, Liu X, Li Z, et al Real-time ultrasound elastography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(7):861–867. doi: 10.7863/jum.2009.28.7.861.
[35]. Szczepanek-Parulska E, Woliński K, Stangierski A, et al Comparison of diagnostic value of conventional ultrasonography and shear wave elastography in the prediction of thyroid lesions malignancy. PLoS One 2013;8(11):e81532. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081532.
[36]. Lyshchik A, Higashi T, Asato R, et al Thyroid gland tumor diagnosis at US elastography. Radiology 2005;237(1):202–211. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2363041248.
[37]. Zhang YF, Liu C, Xu HX, et al Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: a new tool for the diagnosis of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:416969. doi: 10.1155/2014/416969.
[38]. Bojunga J, Herrmann E, Meyer G, et al Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules: a meta-analysis. Thyroid 2010;20(10):1145–1150. doi: 10.1089/thy.2010.0079.
[39]. Schenke S, Zimny M. Combination of sonoelastography and TIRADS for the diagnostic assessment of thyroid nodules. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018;44(3):575–583. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.11.017.
[40]. Mehrmohammadi M, Song P, Meixner DD, et al Comb-push ultrasound shear elastography (CUSE) for evaluation of thyroid nodules: preliminary in vivo results. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015;34(1):97–106. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2346498.
[41]. Bardet S, Ciappuccini R, Pellot-Barakat C, et al Shear wave elastography in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology: results of a prospective bicentric study. Thyroid 2017;27(11):1441–1449. doi: 10.1089/thy.2017.0293.
[42]. Vorländer C, Wolff J, Saalabian S, et al Real-time ultrasound elastography–a noninvasive diagnostic procedure for evaluating dominant thyroid nodules. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010;395(7):865–871. doi: 10.1007/s00423-010-0685-3.
[43]. Menzilcioglu MS, Duymus M, Avcu S. Sonographic elastography of the thyroid gland. Pol J Radiol 2016;81:152–156. doi: 10.12659/PJR.896178.
[44]. Rago T, Vitti P. Potential value of elastosonography in the diagnosis of malignancy in thyroid nodules. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;53(5):455–464.
[45]. Szczepanek-Parulska E, Woliński K, Stangierski A, et al Biochemical and ultrasonographic parameters influencing thyroid nodules elasticity. Endocrine 2014;47(2):519–527. doi: 10.1007/s12020-014-0197-y.
[46]. Cantisani V, Lodise P, Grazhdani H, et al Ultrasound elastography in the evaluation of thyroid pathology. Current status. Eur J Radiol 2014;83(3):420–428. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.05.008.
[47]. Borza T, Konijeti R, Kibel AS. Early detection, PSA screening, and management of overdiagnosis. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2013;27(6):1091–1110. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2013.08.002.
[48]. Brock M, von Bodman C, Sommerer F, et al Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extra capsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E217–E222. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10209.x.
[49]. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Schocke M, et al Comparison of real-time sonoelastography with T2-weighted endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30(5):643–649. doi: 10.7863/jum.2011.30.5.643.
[50]. Pelzer AE, Heinzelbecker J, Weiß C, et al Real-time sonoelastography compared to magnetic resonance imaging using four different modalities at 3.0 T in the detection of prostate cancer: strength and weaknesses. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(5):814–821. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.035.
[51]. Junker D, Schäfer G, Kobel C, et al Comparison of real-time elastography and multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a whole-mount step-section analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202(3):W263–W269. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11061.
[52]. Zhang Y, Tang J, Li YM, et al Differentiation of prostate cancer from benign lesions using strain index of transrectal real-time tissue elastography. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(5):857–862. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.037.
[53]. Salomon G, Köllerman J, Thederan I, et al Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008;54(6):1354–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.035.
[54]. Tsutsumi M, Miyagawa T, Matsumura T, et al Real-time balloon inflation elastography for prostate cancer detection and initial evaluation of clinicopathologic analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(6):W471–W476. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3301.
[55]. Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR. Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q 2012;28(1):13–20. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e318249f594.
[56]. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Junker D, et al Value of real-time elastography targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 1.25 ng/ml or greater and 4.00 ng/ml or less. J Urol 2010;184(3):913–917. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.05.026.
[57]. Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Struve P, et al Comparison of sonoelastography guided biopsy with systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. Eur Radiol 2007;17(9):2278–2285. doi: 10.1007/s00330-007-0606-1.
[58]. Brock M, von Bodman C, Palisaar RJ, et al The impact of real-time elastography guiding a systematic prostate biopsy to improve cancer detection rate: a prospective study of 353 patients. J Urol 2012;187(6):2039–2043. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.063.
[59]. Junker D, De Zordo T, Quentin M, et al Real-time elastography of the prostate. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:180804. doi: 10.1155/2014/180804.
[60]. Sánchez-Conde M, Montes-Ramírez ML, Miralles P, et al Comparison of transient elastography and liver biopsy for the assessment of liver fibrosis in HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients and correlation with noninvasive serum markers. J Viral Hepat 2010;17(4):280–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2009.01180.x.
[61]. Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, et al Prospective comparison of transient elastography, fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2005;128(2):343–350. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018.
[62]. Ziol M, Handra-Luca A, Kettaneh A, et al Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2005;41(1):48–54. doi: 10.1002/hep.20506.
[63]. Chon YE, Choi EH, Song KJ, et al Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7(9):e44930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044930.
[64]. Castéra L, Foucher J, Bernard PH, et al Pitfalls of liver stiffness measurement: a 5-year prospective study of 13,369 examinations. Hepatology 2010;51(3):828–835. doi: 10.1002/hep.23425.
[65]. Vergara S, Macías J, Rivero A, et al The use of transient elastometry for assessing liver fibrosis in patients with HIV and hepatitis C virus coinfection. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45(8):969–974. doi: 10.1086/521857.
[66]. Shaheen AA, Wan AF, Myers RP. FibroTest and FibroScan for the prediction of hepatitis C-related fibrosis: a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(11):2589–2600. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01466.x.
[67]. Ganne-Carrié N, Ziol M, de Ledinghen V, et al Accuracy of liver stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver diseases. Hepatology 2006;44(6):1511–1517. doi: 10.1002/hep.21420.
[68]. Macías J, Recio E, Vispo E, et al Application of transient elastometry to differentiate mild from moderate to severe liver fibrosis in HIV/HCV co-infected patients. J Hepatol 2008;49(6):916–922. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2008.07.031.
[69]. Bota S, Herkner H, Sporea I, et al Meta-analysis: ARFI elastography versus transient elastography for the evaluation of liver fibrosis. Liver Int 2013;33(8):1138–1147. doi: 10.1111/liv.12240.
[70]. Mancini M, Salomone Megna A, Ragucci M, et al Reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) in patients with chronic liver disease. PLoS One 2017;12(10):e0185391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185391.
[71]. Ferraioli G, Tinelli C, Dal Bello B, et al Accuracy of real-time shear wave elastography for assessing liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C: a pilot study. Hepatology 2012;56(6):2125–2133. doi: 10.1002/hep.25936.
[72]. Tada T, Kumada T, Toyoda H, et al Utility of real-time shear wave elastography for assessing liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection without cirrhosis: Comparison of liver fibrosis indices. Hepatol Res 2015;45(10):E122–E129. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12476.
[73]. Uldbjerg N, Malmström A, Ekman G, et al Isolation and characterization of dermatan sulphate proteoglycan from human uterine cervix. Biochem J 1983;209(2):497–503. doi: 10.1042/bj2090497.
[74]. Minamoto T, Arai K, Hirakawa S, et al Immunohistochemical studies on collagen types in the uterine cervix in pregnant and nonpregnant states. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156(1):138–144. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(87)90225-0.
[75]. Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obs Gynecol 1995;38(2):267–279.
[76]. Ludmir J, Sehdev HM. Anatomy and physiology of the uterine cervix. Clin Obs Gynecol 2000;43(3):433–439.
[77]. Hassan SS, Romero R, Haddad R, et al The transcriptome of the uterine cervix before and after spontaneous term parturition. Am J Obs Gynecol 2006;195(3):778–786. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.021.
[78]. Hassan SS, Romero R, Tarca AL, et al Signature pathways identified from gene expression profiles in the human uterine cervix before and after spontaneous term parturition. Am J Obs Gynecol 2007;197(3):250.e1–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.07.008.
[79]. House M, Kaplan DL, Socrate S. Relationships between mechanical properties and extracellular matrix constituents of the cervical stroma during pregnancy. Semin Perinatol 2009;33(5):300–307. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2009.06.002.
[80]. Peralta L, Molina FS, Melchor J, et al Transient elastography to assess the cervical ripening during pregnancy: a preliminary study. Ultraschall Med 2017;38(4):395–402. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1553325.
[81]. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, et al Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371(9606):75–84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60074-4.
[82]. Fuchs T, Woytoń R, Pomorski M, et al Sonoelastography of the uterine cervix as a new diagnostic tool of cervical assessment in pregnant women - preliminary report. Ginekol Pol 2013;84(1):12–16. doi: 10.17772/gp/1534.
[83]. Hernandez-Andrade E, Garcia M, Ahn H, et al Strain at the internal cervical os assessed with quasi-static elastography is associated with the risk of spontaneous preterm delivery at ≤ 34 weeks of gestation. J Perinat Med 2015;43(6):657–666. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0382.
[84]. Wozniak S, Czuczwar P, Szkodziak P, et al Elastography in predicting preterm delivery in asymptomatic, low-risk women: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14(1):238. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-238.
[85]. Köbbing K, Fruscalzo A, Hammer K, et al Quantitative elastography of the uterine cervix as a predictor of preterm delivery. J Perinatol 2014;34(10):774–780. doi: 10.1038/jp.2014.87.
[86]. Agarwal A, Agarwal S, Chandak S. Role of acoustic radiation force impulse and shear wave velocity in prediction of preterm birth: a prospective study. Acta Radiol 2018;59(6):755–762. doi: 10.1177/0284185117730689.
[87]. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24(2):266–268.
[88]. Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS. Imaging analysis of cervical elastography for prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32(6):937–946. doi: 10.7863/ultra.32.6.937.
[89]. Muscatello A, Di Nicola M, Accurti V, et al Sonoelastography as method for preliminary evaluation of uterine cervix to predict success of induction of labor. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;35(1):57–61. doi: 10.1159/000355084.
[90]. Londero AP, Schmitz R, Bertozzi S, et al Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting labor induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinat Med 2016;44(2):167–178. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2015-0035.
[91]. Hinz T, Hoeller T, Wenzel J, et al Real-time tissue elastography as promising diagnostic tool for diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma: a prospective single-center experience. Dermatology 2013;226(1):81–90. doi: 10.1159/000346942.
[92]. Botar-Jid CM, Cosgarea R, Bolboacă SD, et al Assessment of cutaneous melanoma by use of very- high-frequency ultrasound and real-time elastography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206(4):699–704. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.15182.
[93]. Botar Jid C, Bolboacă SD, Cosgarea R, et al Doppler ultrasound and strain elastography in the assessment of cutaneous melanoma: preliminary results. Med Ultrason 2015;17(4):509–514. doi: 10.11152/mu.2013.2066.174.dus.
[94]. Dasgeb B, Morris MA, Mehregan D, Siegel EL. Quantified ultrasound elastography in the assessment of cutaneous carcinoma. Br J Radiol 2015;88(1054):20150344. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150344.
[95]. Magarelli N, Carducci C, Bucalo C, et al Sonoelastography for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of superficial soft tissue lesions: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2014;24(3):566–573. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3069-6.
[96]. Nakajima M, Kiyohara Y, Shimizu M, et al Clinical application of realtime tissue elastography on skin lesions. MEDIX Suppl 2007;19:36–39.
[97]. Yuan S, Magarik M, Lex AM, et al Clinical applications of sonoelastography. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016;13(12):1107–1117. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2016.1257938.
[98]. Kim SJ, Park HJ, Lee SY. Usefulness of strain elastography of the musculoskeletal system. Ultrasonography 2016;35(2):104–109. doi: 10.14366/usg.15072.
[99]. Taljanovic MS, Gimber LH, Becker GW, et al Shear-wave elastography: basic physics and musculoskeletal applications. Radiographics 2017;37(3):855–870. doi: 10.1148/rg.2017160116.
[100]. Drakonaki EE, Allen GM, Wilson DJ. Real-time ultrasound elastography of the normal Achilles tendon: reproducibility and pattern description. Clin Radiol 2009;64(12):1196–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.08.006.
[101]. De Zordo T, Fink C, Feuchtner GM, et al Real-time sonoelastography findings in healthy Achilles tendons. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):W134–W138. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1843.
[102]. De Zordo T, Chhem R, Smekal V, et al Real-time sonoelastography: findings in patients with symptomatic achilles tendons and comparison to healthy volunteers. Ultraschall Med 2010;31(4):394–400. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1109809.
[103]. Drakonaki EE, Allen GM, Wilson DJ. Ultrasound elastography for musculoskeletal applications. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1019):1435–1445. doi: 10.1259/bjr/93042867.
[104]. Shinohara M, Sabra K, Gennisson J, et al Real-time visualization of muscle stiffness distribution with ultrasound shear wave imaging during muscle contraction. Muscle Nerve 2010;42(3):438–441. doi: 10.1002/mus.21723.
[105]. Lv F, Tang J, Luo Y, et al Muscle crush injury of extremity: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2012;38(5):795–802. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.01.010.
[106]. Lacourpaille L, Nordez A, Hug F, et al Time-course effect of exercise-induced muscle damage on localized muscle mechanical properties assessed using elastography. Acta Physiol 2014;211(1):135–146. doi: 10.1111/apha.12272.
[107]. Brandenburg JE, Eby SF, Song P, et al Quantifying passive muscle stiffness in children with and without cerebral palsy using ultrasound shear wave elastography. Dev Med Child Neurol 2016;58(12):1288–1294. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.13179.
[108]. Akagi R, Yamashita Y, Ueyasu Y. Age-related differences in muscle shear moduli in the lower extremity. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41(11):2906–2912. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.07.011.
[109]. Carpenter EL, Lau HA, Kolodny EH, et al Skeletal muscle in healthy subjects versus those with GNE-related myopathy: evaluation with shear-wave US: a pilot study. Radiology 2015;277(2):546–554. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142212.
[110]. Eby S, Zhao H, Song P, et al Quantitative evaluation of passive muscle stiffness in chronic stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2016;95(12):899–910. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000516.
[111]. Du LJ, He W, Cheng LG, et al Ultrasound shear wave elastography in assessment of muscle stiffness in patients with Parkinson's disease: a primary observation. Clin Imaging 2016;40(6):1075–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.05.008.
[112]. Lee SY, Park HJ, Kwag HJ, et al Ultrasound elastography in the early diagnosis of plantar fasciitis. Clin Imaging 2014;38(5):715–718. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.12.004.
[113]. Lee SY, Park HJ, Choi YJ, et al Value of adding sonoelastography to conventional ultrasound in patients with congenital muscular torticollis. Pediatr Radiol 2013;43(12):1566–1572. doi: 10.1007/s00247-013-2750-x.
[114]. BMUS. The British Medical Ultrasound Society: Guidelines for the Safe Use of Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment Part I: Basic Guidelines. 2000;BMUS, 1–2.
[115]. Kollmann C, ter Haar G, Dolezal L, et al Ultrasound output: thermal (TI) and mechanical (MI) indices. Ultraschall der Medizin 2013;34(5):422–434. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1335843.
[116]. Duck FA. Hazards, risks and safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Med Eng Phys 2008;30(10):1338–1348. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.06.002.
[117]. Duck FA. The Meaning of Thermal Index (TI) and Mechanical Index (MI) Values. BMUS Bulletin 1997;5(4):36–40. doi:10.1177/1742271x9700500411.
[118]. Bigelow TA, Church CC, Sandstrom K, et al The thermal index: its strengths, weaknesses, and proposed improvements. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30(5):714–734. doi: 10.7863/jum.2011.30.5.714.
[119]. Barnett SB, Maulik D. International Perinatal Doppler Society. Guidelines and recommendations for safe use of Doppler ultrasound in perinatal applications. J Matern Fetal Med 2001;10(2):75–84. doi:10.1080/jmf.
[120]. Nelson TR, Fowlkes JB, Abramowicz JS, et al Ultrasound biosafety considerations for the practicing sonographer and sonologist. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(2):139–150. doi: 10.7863/jum.2009.28.2.139.
[121]. Van den Hof MC. No. 359-Obstetric Ultrasound Biological Effects and Safety. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40(5):627–632. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2017.11.023.
[122]. Hoskins P, Martin K, Thrust A. Diagnostic Ultrasound: Physics and Equipment. 2nd ed.New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
[123]. Martin K. The acoustic safety of new ultrasound technologies. Ultrasound 2010;18(3):110–118. doi: 10.1258/ult.2010.010024.
[124]. Mottet N, Aubry S, Vidal C, et al Feasibility of 2-D ultrasound shear wave elastography of fetal lungs in case of threatened preterm labour: a study protocol. BMJ Open 2017;7(12):e018130. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018130.
[125]. Consensus conference: the use of diagnostic ultrasound imaging during pregnancy. JAMA 1984;252(5):669–672. doi:10.1001/jama.1984.03350050057029.
[126]. Massó P, Rus G, Molina FS. Safety of elastography in fetal medicine: preliminary study on hypoacusis. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol 2017;50(5):660–661. doi: 10.1002/uog.17429.
[127]. Karaman E. Response to 'safety of elastography applied to the placenta: Be careful with ultrasound radiation force’. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2017;43(9):1510. doi: 10.1111/jog.13382.
[128]. Herman BA, Harris GR. Models and regulatory considerations for transient temperature rise during diagnostic ultrasound pulses. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002;28(9):1217–1224. doi:10.1016/s0301-5629(02)00558-6.
[129]. Palmeri ML, Frinkley KD, Nightingale KR. Experimental studies of the thermal effects associated with radiation force imaging of soft tissue. Ultrason Imaging 2004;26(2):100–114. doi: 10.1177/016173460402600203.
[130]. Miller MW, Dewey WC. An extended commentary on “models and regulatory considerations for transient temperature rise during diagnostic ultrasound pulses” by Herman and Harris. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29(11):1653–1659. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.08.022.
[131]. Quarello E, Lacoste R, Mancini J, et al Feasibility and reproducibility of ShearWave (TM) elastography of fetal baboon organs. Prenat Diagn 2015;35(11):1112–1116. doi: 10.1002/pd.4655.
[132]. Alison M, Biran V, Tanase A, et al Quantitative shear-wave elastography of the liver in preterm neonates with intra-uterine growth restriction. PLoS One 2015;10(11):e0143220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143220.
[133]. Su Y, Ma J, Du L, et al Application of acoustic radiation force impulse imaging (ARFI) in quantitative evaluation of neonatal brain development. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2015;42(6):797–800.
[134]. Li C, Zhang C, Li J, et al An experimental study of the potential biological effects associated with 2-D shear wave elastography on the neonatal brain. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016;42(7):1551–1559. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.02.018.
[135]. Fatemi M, Alizad A, Greenleaf JF. Characteristics of the audio sound generated by ultrasound imaging systems. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117(3 Pt 1):1448–1455. doi: 10.1121/1.1852856.
[136]. Palmeri ML, Nightingale KR. On the thermal effects associated with radiation force imaging of soft tissue. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2004;51(5):551–565. doi:10.1109/tuffc.2004.1302764.
[137]. Skurczynski MJ, Duck FA, Shipley JA, et al Evaluation of experimental methods for assessing safety for ultrasound radiation force elastography. Br J Radiol 2009;82(980):666–674. doi: 10.1259/bjr/21175651.
[138]. Tabaru M, Yoshikawa H, Azuma T, et al Experimental study on temperature rise of acoustic radiation force elastography. J Med Ultrason 2012;39(3):137–146. doi: 10.1007/s10396-012-0357-8.

Elasticity; Elasticity imaging techniques; Shear wave elastography; Strain elastography; Stiffness

© 2019 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.