1 - 20 SONOACE X4 Operation Manual
surface, for example, cranial bone.
The soft tissue thermal index (TIs) informs the user about the potential for heating within soft
homogeneous tissue.
You can select either TIs or TIb using the TIs/TIb selection on the Miscellaneous system
setups. TIc is displayed when you select a trans-cranial application.
▐ Mechanical and Thermal indices Display Precision and Accuracy
The Mechanical and Thermal Indices on the system are precise to 0.1 units.
The MI and TI display accuracy estimates for the system are given in the Acoustic Output Tables
manual. These accuracy estimates are based on the variability range of probes and systems, inherent
acoustic output modeling errors and measurement variability, as described below.
The displayed values should be interpreted as relative information to help the system operator achieve
the ALARA principle through prudent use of the system. The values should not be interpreted as actual
physical values investigated tissue or organs. The initial data that is used to support the output display
is derived from laboratory measurements based on the AIUM measurement standard. The
measurements are then put into algorithms for calculating the displayed output values.
Many of the assumptions used in the process of measurement and calculation are conservative in
nature. Over-estimation of actual in situ exposure, for the vast majority of tissue paths, is built into the
measurement and calculation process. For example:
The measured water tank values are de-rated using a conservative, industry standard, attenuation
coefficient of 0.3dB/cm-MHz.
Conservative values for tissue characteristics were selected for use in the TI models. Conservative
values for tissue or bone absorption rates, blood perfusion rates, blood heat capacity, and tissue
thermal conductivity were selected.
Steady state temperature rise is assumed in the industry standard TI models, and the assumption is
made that the ultrasound probe is held steady in one position long enough for steady state to be
reached.
A number of factors are considered when estimating the accuracy of display values: hardware variations,
algorithm accuracy estimation and measurement variability. Variability among probes and systems is a
significant factor. Probe variability results from piezoelectric crystal efficiencies, process-related
impedance differences, and sensitive lens focusing parameter variations. Differences in the system
pulse voltage control and efficiencies are also a contributor to variability. There are inherent
uncertainties in the algorithms used for estimating acoustic output values over the range of possible
system operating conditions and pulse voltages. Inaccuracies in laboratory measurements are related to
differences in hydrophone calibration and performance, positioning, alignment and digitization
tolerances, and variability among test operators.
The conservative assumptions of the output estimation algorithms of linear propagation, at all depths,
through a 0.3dB/cm-MHz attenuated medium are not taken into account in calculation of the accuracy
estimate displayed. Neither linear propagation, nor uniform attenuation at the 0.3dB/cm-MHz rate, occur