William D. O’Brien, Jr.
Bioacoustics Research Laboratory
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801 USA
Some 35 years after Paul-Jacques and Pierre Curie discovered piezoelectricity,
ultrasonic imaging was developed by Paul Langevin. During this work, ultrasonic
energy was observed to have a detrimental biological effect. These observations
were confirmed a decade later by R. W. Wood and A. L. Loomis. It was not until
the early 1950s that ultrasonic exposure conditions were controlled and specified
so that studies could focus on the mechanisms by which ultrasound influenced biological
materials. In the late 1940s, pioneering work was initiated to image the human body
by ultrasonic techniques. These engineers and physicians were aware of the deleterious
ultrasound effects at sufficiently high levels; this endeavored them to keep the exposure
levels reasonably low. Over the past three decades, diagnostic ultrasound has become
a sophisticated technology. Yet, our understanding of the potential risks has not changed
appreciably. It is very encouraging that human injury has never been attributed to
clinical practice of diagnostic ultrasound.
Keywords: ultrasound medical equipment, safety considerations, ultrasound regulation,
Submitted to : Japanese Journal of Applied Physics
Diagnostic medicine has generated an enormity of clinical experience with ultrasound.
During this time, it is extremely encouraging that no deleterious clinical effects have
been reported. However, one must be cautious to conclude from this experiential data
base that ultrasound can be thought of as safe. There is no substitute for carefully
derived scientific findings. One only needs to examine the history of ionizing radiation
and other chemical and physical agents to realize that many subtle effects would not have
been discovered without comprehensive experimental studies using animals. Thus,
comprehensive animal laboratory studies must be an essential part of the determination
of permissible dosage levels for the various medical applications of ultrasound. Yet,
this experiential data base strongly suggests that the clinical use of modern diagnostic
ultrasound instrumentation represents a risk-free diagnostic modality. An examination of
the historical developments of diagnostic ultrasound equipment, and other issues that
surrounded these developments, is provided here in an effort to provide perspective as
to why this important diagnostic modality appears safe.
2. Early History (up to the late 1940s mostly)
The earliest history of the science of sound has been recorded by Hunt1)
in his manuscript which was completed following his untimely death. Another interesting
and readable history of acoustics was prepared by Lindsey.2) Hunt recounts
the period from antiquity to the age of Newton, and Lindsey brings us mostly to the age
of Rayleigh with special emphasis of Rayleigh’s impact on modern acoustics. Both of these
histories provide a view of how acoustics then was highly interdisciplinary, a situation
not too different from that which exists today. Sir Isaac Newton put forth the first
serious theory regarding sound being a wave in his 1687 Principia mathematica.3)
Modern acoustics as we know it today was put forth in the classic 1877 work The Theory
of Sound by Lord Rayleigh.4)
The transduction device has always been central in the effective production of ultrasound
wherein both the magnetostrictive and piezoelectric effects have played important roles.
The magnetostrictive effect was discovered by Joule5) in the mid 1800s. More
than three decades after the 1880 discovery of the piezoelectric effect by the Curie
brothers,6) a discovery which revolutionized the production and reception
of high-frequency sound, the French scientist Paul Langevin developed one of the first
uses of ultrasound for underwater echo ranging of submerged objects with a quartz crystal
at an approximate frequency of 150 kHz.7) Langevin was, perhaps, the first to
observe that ultrasonic energy could have a detrimental effect upon biological material
wherein he reported8) "fish placed in the beam in the neighborhood of the
source operation in a small tank were killed immediately, and certain observers experienced
a painful sensation on plunging the hand in this region." Langevin also reported
observing incipient cavitation in water when the source was active.
Langevin, however, was not the first to propose echo ranging. Richardson, in 1912 in
response to the Titanic disaster, suggested both airborn9) and
underwater10) echo-ranging schemes, and, in 1914, Fessenden11)
experimentally demonstrated echo-ranging underwater detection of an iceberg.
Another decade passed before a more detailed, experimental study was conducted by
Wood and Loomis12) to investigate Langevin’s 1917 observation. Although
the ultrasonic levels were not specified, their experimental studies showed that
ultrasonic energy had a range of effects from rupture of Spirogyra and Paramecium to
death of small fishes and frogs by a one- to two-minute exposure, the latter also
observedå by Langevin with a Poulsen arc oscillator. Considerable work followed
and in the earliest review paper on this subject, Harvey13) reported on the
physical, chemical, and biological effects of ultrasound in which alterations were
produced in macromolecules, microorganisms, cells, isolated cells, bacteria, tissues,
and organs with a view towards the identification of the interaction mechanisms. The
ultrasonic exposure conditions of these early works were neither well characterized
nor reported, but the exposure levels were undoubtedly high.
It is not known when scientists initially recognized the two principal biophysical
mechanisms that are currently invoked, viz., thermal and cavitation. The
application of ultrasound to therapeutically heat tissue was suggested as early as
1932.14) Also in the 1920s Boyle and his colleagues were perhaps the
first to observe ultrasound-produced gas bubble formation in liquids, and recognized
this phenomenon as cavitation.15-17) The ultrasound-induced biological
observations by Langevin,8) and by Wood and Loomis12) were
caused by gas bubbles as demonstrated with overpressurization experiments.18)
Ultrasound-induced tissue heating was applied extensively as a therapeutic agent in
the 1930s and 1940s. However, while it was clear that ultrasound could effectively heat
tissue, and excess enthusiasm resulted in numerous clinical applications being proposed
and tried, the inferior clinical experience caused this modality to fall into disfavor
(see discussion of 1949 Erlangen resolution19)). Thus, as Hill20)
observed of this time, "it is perhaps unfortunate that the generation of ultrasound
proved to be so relatively simple and cheap that a considerable practice was built up."
During this time period, with an understanding that ultrasound at sufficient levels
could have a dramatic effect on tissues, and produce large temperature increases, the
potential for ultrasonic surgery was proposed. This ability to noninvasively burn focal
tissue volumes deep in the body using ultrasound was first proposed in 194221,22)
as a neurosurgery technique. Ultrasound surgery and its biophysical mechanism (heating)
were further developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s.23) Also proposed
in 1948 and applied in 1952 was the application of ultrasound surgery to destroy the
vestibular function to treat the symptoms of Menière’s disease.24)
There was very little activity for about a decade in the development of ultrasound
imaging capabilities following Langevin’s SONAR work during the First World War.
In 1928, Sokolov proposed and a few years later demonstrated a through-transmission
technique for flaw detection in metals.25) Firestone’s 1942 patent26)
for flaw detection in metals, and his later demonstration, is considered the first modern
pulse-echo ultrasound technique for flaw detection,27,28) and the basis for
pulse-echo imaging in medicine. A technique that was never developed into clinical
application was based on the principle of differential attenuation, a through-transmission
ultrasonic technique which was constructed in 1937 for brain imaging by the Dussik
brothers,29) and by others in the late 1940s.30)
The development of diagnostic ultrasound instrumentation as we know it today was
initiated around the time of the end of the Second World War, a time when fast electronic
circuitry was becoming available as a result of the wartime RADAR and SONAR efforts, both
of which utilized the pulse-echo principle. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Howry31)
showed that tissue interfaces could be detected in ultrasound echoes, Wild32-34)
showed that tissue structure could be differentiated (cancer from benign) in ultrasound echoes,
and Ludwig and Struthers35) showed that gall stones could be detected in ultrasound
echoes, these being A-mode applications; and Howry and Bliss36) and Wild and
Reid37,38) independently built and successfully demonstrated the earliest B-mode,
bistable, ultrasound scanners.
Transduction materials had a central role in the diagnostic ultrasound developments.
Quartz-based transducers had limited application, being first used by Langevin for underwater
echo ranging. Quartz was used because other transduction devices and/or materials had not
been developed, and it possessed high mechanical strength and low internal friction. However,
large amplitude voltages were required to drive quartz transducers. Around the 1930s, Quartz
started to be replaced for underwater ultrasound applications by Rochelle salt and was used
up to the time of the Second World War39) at which time it was replace with
piezoelectric ceramics, the first of which was barium titanate.40) The strongly
piezoelectric Rochelle salt was replaced because its properties were very susceptible to
moisture. Piezoelectric ceramics had two major advantages, improved efficiency to convert
electrical into acoustic energy and could be processed into varying shapes and sizes.
Also, piezoelectric ceramics did not require large amplitude voltages to drive them. Pure
barium titanate’s principal disadvantage was its low-temperature Curie point (-5˚C)
and to improve this, small amount of calcium titanate and/or lead titanate were added. A
major advancement in transducer materials occurred in 1954 when Jaffe41) discovery
lead titanate-zirconate compositions, a piezoelectric material which retained most of the
advantageous properties of the titanates while extending its operating temperature range.
It is interesting to observe that both Howry’s first system and Wild’s system in the
late 1940s used quartz as the transduction material. However, Howry’s later systems
employed some of the newer transduction materials,31) and Reid and Wild42)
had evaluated the applicability of an annular array made from barium titanate.
In parallel with the early history of ultrasound were the developments of ionization
radiation starting with Röntgen’s 1895 discovery of X rays,43) 15 years
after the Curie brothers discovered the piezoelectric effect, and for which he won the
first Nobel Prize in physics in 1901. Becquerel, in 1896, discovered natural radioactivity
wherein he found that uranium gave off some "invisible rays" that darken a
photographic plate. In 1898, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the two new radioactive
elements polonium and radium, the same year Rutherford identified what
we now know as alpha and beta particles. Almost immediately, medical application of X
rays were developed, and the science and technology of radioactivity was born. An ironic
history with ionizing radiation resulted in Marie Curie, using piezoelectric techniques
devised by her husband Pierre Curie to carefully measure radiation in pitchblend, an ore
that contained uranium; she died in 1934 from pernicious anemia, presumable from an over
exposure to radiation. This view gained support when, in 1942, Dunlap44) provided
strong evidence that ionizing radiation was responsible for human leukemia. In the mid 1920s,
Müller45) and Stadler46.47) discovered the mutagenic effects of
X rays, thus identifying the potential hazards of ionizing radiation. Major national and
international activities originated to quantify exposure from ionizing radiation from which
radiation protection guidelines were developed.48) In the mid 1920s, the first
radiation protection guideline was the tolerance dose which was based on the skin
unit dose, the amount of ionizing radiation just required produced skin erythema (skin
redness) in humans within a period of about one week. The tolerance dose was about one
percent of a skin unit dose averaged over a one month period. Later when the concept and
value of the unit roentgen (R) was established in 1928,49) the skin unit
dose was quantified to roughly 600 R; thus the tolerance dose worked out to be 6 R on a
monthly basis, or 0.2 R/day, later to be lowered to 0.1 R/day. The term tolerance dose
created many problems because it was impossible to predict just what level was tolerable
over a long period of time and with the realization in the mid 1930s that ionizing radiation
effects may not be threshold-type reactions, the term maximum permissible dose was
substituted for tolerance dose. In the early 1930s, it was shown that the biological effect
of ionizing radiation depended not only on the exposure intensity and time but also on the
quality of radiation since differences were observed in growth reduction and mortality studies
between X rays and g rays.50) This was termed the
relative biological effectiveness (RBE) concept and became even more important
in the 1940s with the production and discovery of other ionizing radiation particles.
In the late 1940s the rep for roentgen-equivalent-physical was
proposed51) and represented the energy absorbed by tissue when exposed to 1 R.
The rep concept led to what is currently the quantity absorbed dose with the unit
rad for radiation absorbed dose.52) At the same time the rep
was being suggested as a unit to describe dose, the unit rem, for roentgen-equivalent-man,
was suggested for radiation protection purposes and defined as the product of energy
absorption (in reps) and the RBE (dimensionless) of the energy under consideration.51)
In the mid 1950s, the rem concept was adopted, using the rad instead of the rep. The quantity
RBE dose in rems was equal to the product of absorbed dose (in rads) and the RBE.53)
Also, concerns for the protection of the fetus from the possible effects of low doses of
ionizing radiation were being raised in the 1950s.54-56)
The scientific and engineering advances during the 1940s had enormous influences on the
development of diagnostic ultrasound. In 1943, the Moore School of Electrical Engineering
at the University of Pennsylvania was contracted to construct the Electronic Numerical
Integrator and Computer (ENIAC), the first electronic computer with design specifications
to calculate 5,000 operations per second. Up to then, the only computing capabilities were
basically analog computers. Another major program was the radar activity at the Radiation
Laboratory at MIT from which the need was identified for fast electronic circuitry in order
to achieve higher frequencies for better imaging resolution. Radar was also responsible for
much of the diagnostic ultrasound nomenclature. In the mid 1930s, the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company identified a need to develop fast electronic switching to replace electromechanical
switching. This lead AT&T’s Bell Labs to initiate a solid-state research program which lead
to the invention of the point-contact transistor for which its 50th anniversary was celebrated
in December, 1997.
While ultrasound exposimetry was inferior in these early times to that possible today, these
early bioeffect studies clearly demonstrated that ultrasound, at sufficient levels, could
easily destroy biological material. From the earliest considerations that ultrasound might
be a feasible energy source for producing images of the human body, it was known that high
ultrasonic energy levels had the potential to be hazardous. This information must be kept
in mind because many of the early pioneers who were developing ultrasound imaging devices were
also cognizant that ultrasound had the potential for disrupting biological materials.
Additionally, they were aware from the history of ionizing radiation to be concerned with the
potential for hazardous effects. Thus, it must be presumed that there has been a continuing
concern of the risk from ultrasound prior to and during the entire period of diagnostic
It should be noted that as early as 1951,57) individuals working on the
development of diagnostic ultrasound equipment had an awareness of a potential risk to
patients. Also in the early 1950s the same investigators active in image system developments
were also investigating the nature of ultrasound-induced tissue damage,58-62)
thus demonstrating a concern for the safety of this diagnostic modality.
3. Mid History (between early 1950s and late 1960s)
By the early to mid 1950s, the basic ideas of producing and acquiring reflected
ultrasound echoes using either water path or direct contact methods, and displaying
them in either A-mode and B-mode formats had been identified. These early investigators
made their observations and findings public through presentations and publications which
no doubt stimulated others to pursue pulse-echo system improvements and/or diagnostic
imaging applications in, for example, echoencephalography,63-65) ophthalmology,66-68)
echocardiography,69,70) obstetrics and gynecology,71,72) breast,73)
direct-contact two-dimensional ultrasonic scanner,74,75) ultrasonic scanner with two
articulated arms76,77) and dynamic focusing.42) However, progress was
modest and the bistable images were often challenging for diagnostic interpretation in the late
1950s and 1960s. It was a time when most of the progress was being made in university and/or
hospital settings by true pioneers.
The equipment developments for assessing flow and motion (Doppler) developed rapidly during
this period. One of the first proposed was a two-transducer, transit-time, continuous wave
technique,78-80) but it did not prove to be a satisfactory method for measuring
blood flow. The first successful system was a continuous wave, nondirectional, backscatter
technique.81,82) Directional Doppler was proposed in 196483) which
lead to various pulse-wave techniques.84-88) Most of these techniques have now
been replaced with more sophisticated two-dimensional, real-time approaches. Like with the
pulse-echo imaging developments, progress during this time was made principally in university
and/or hospital settings.
During these two decades, the ability to quantify ultrasonic fields improved but only to a
limited extent; there were still no national-based ultrasound measurement standards or procedures.
All of the improvements dealt with absolute procedures to quantify second-order quantities,
and consisted of ultrasonic intensity via thermocouple probe89-92) and electrodynamic
method,93) and ultrasonic power via calorimetry94) and radiation pressure
This period saw only a few advances in our understanding of how ultrasound interacted with
biological materials. Perhaps the first major symposium on "Ultrasound in Biology and
Medicine" was held at the University of Illinois in 1952 to examine phenomena of how
ultrasonic energy interacted with and acted upon biological materials. Of the eight papers
presented, six were published and dealt with the effects of high-intensity ultrasound34,97.98)
or the thermal mechanism of ultrasound.99-101) Two additional symposia were
held (June, 1955 June, 1962) to address similar issues.102,103) This literature
laid the basic foundation for the biophysical mechanisms by which ultrasound is known to
affect biological materials, viz., thermal and cavitation.
There were scattered reports about ultrasound having an effect on biological systems during
this period, but these reports in general did not deal with the types of exposure that would be
expected from diagnostic ultrasound equipment, nor did they provide any kind of a consistent
message. Two summaries identify a number of these early reports.104,105) However,
during the 1950s and 1960s, as diagnostic ultrasound equipment started to be used in clinical
medicine, there continued to be concerns about its safety which could not be dispelled because
of the paucity of well-conducted and comprehensive experimental studies.
One interesting observation made in the late 1960s that would wait more than two decades
before it would become an active area of basic and clinical research was the identification
of the production of cavitation at the tip of catheters when various liquids were injected
through the catheter. The cavitation was a primary source of echoes in an echocardiograph
image, and the first application of an injected contrast agent was identified.106,107)
Ancillary activities in the late 1950s which would have an enormous impact on future
diagnostic ultrasound instrumentation included the first integrated circuit using discrete
wire interconnections by Kilby and the first integrated circuit using vapor deposited metal
connections by Noyce,108) and in 1960, DEC announced its first minicomputer,
the PDP-1, and in 1965, announced the PDP-8, the first minicomputer to use integrated
4. The More Recent History (between early 1970s and mid 1980s)
This 15-year period witnessed the greatest expansion with diagnostic ultrasound imaging
capabilities, starting with bistable, static and ending with grey-scale, real-time
capabilities. One of the major ultrasonic image quality advances was the introduction
of the grey scale.110,111) Another major advance was the ability to display
images in "real time," wherein there were a number of approaches including the
mechanical scanner,112) the linear array,113,114) the phased
array115-117) and the water-path scanner.118) Scan converter
developments played an important role with the implementation of both grey-scale and
Major Doppler advances also occurred during this period when blood velocity estimates
could be displayed on a B-mode image, that is, duplex imaging,121) and then
when both theory and high-speed computational electronics provided the capability for
During this period, the ability to quantify ultrasonic fields improved considerably.
Perhaps the first intercomparison (between two universities) to assess the absolute
measurement of ultrasonic intensity was conducted;124) the comparison was
conducted with the elastic sphere radiometer.125)
A major breakthrough of earlier work occurred with Kawai’s discovery in
1969126) of the strong piezoelectric effect in polyvinylidenefluoride
(PVDF) to measure the temporal characteristics of diagnostic ultrasound fields.
Two types of PVDF hydrophones were developed, viz., needle127) and
The US National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST) developed an ultrasound power transfer standard,132)
and the UK National Physical Laboratory developed both a two-transducer reciprocity
technique and an optical technique.133)
This 15-year period had its controversies relative to whether diagnostic ultrasound
was safe. Two are briefly reviewed to illustrate the level of concern the ultrasound
community felt since these reports dealt with the potential of diagnostic ultrasound
affecting chromosomes. In 1970 it was reported that ultrasound from a low-output
commercial fetal pulse detector induced aberrations in human lymphocyte chromosomes.134)
Numerous laboratories throughout the world attempted to replicate the findings without
success. The matter was brought to closure when, in 1975, the same lead author of the
original report was invited to another laboratory in an attempt to duplicate the
experiment; they were unable to reproduce the original findings.135) In the
late 1970s, a report appeared136) which suggested that exposure from a
diagnostic ultrasound system showed an increase in human lymphocyte sister chromatid
exchange (SCE) frequency (an indication of chromosome damage). Like with the previous
chromosomes aberration situation, numerous laboratories throughout the world attempted
to replicate the findings. In 1984, the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s
Bioeffects Committee carefully and thoroughly reviewed a total of 14 ultrasound-SCE
studies and concluded that these studies do not suggest a hazard from exposure to
In the early to mid 1970s, there was great uncertainty with respect to the safety of
ultrasound as discussed above and what authority and role the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) would take in terms of regulating diagnostic ultrasound. Regulatory control of
diagnostic ultrasound in the United States can be traced to passage of the 1976 Medical
Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but for the several years prior to
its passage, the FDA coordinated a classification scheme for all medical devices. There
was apprehension among the public, patients, physicians, sonographers, basic scientists,
manufacturers, and the government. One of the fundamental difficulties was the lack of
an accurate and precise procedure to quantify diagnostic ultrasound equipment outputs.
Because of these difficulties, the output levels from diagnostic ultrasound equipment
were not well characterized, and human exposure levels could not be compared to results
from laboratory experimental studies. In response to this uncertainty, and the lack of
a suitable measurement scheme, the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM),
a medical and scientific professional society, and the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA), a trade organization that represented many of the ultrasound manufacturers,
joined efforts in 1976 to develop a voluntary standard that would assure that sufficient
information on the characteristics of diagnostic ultrasound equipment was supplied to allow
medical personnel to make informed judgments regarding the application of this equipment to
patients. The Safety Standard for Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment138)
was developed over a five-year period and set forth precise definitions, output measurement
procedures and labeling requirements related to those characteristics of ultrasound equipment
that were believed at that time to pertain to patient exposure and safety. The voluntary
standard’s labeling requirements called for manufacturers to make available (publicize) to
the ultrasound community the maximum values of the following ultrasonic quantities: ultrasonic
power; spatial peak, temporal average intensity (ISPTA); and spatial peak, pulse
average intensity (ISPPA). The labeling requirements were based on the philosophy
that there was a potential risk from diagnostic ultrasound exposure and included
those quantities whose magnitudes were known or believed to be related to actual damage or to
risk of damage to biological tissues; they were the quantities most often reported in the basic
science literature to relate the strength of ultrasound to the production of biological effects
in laboratory experimental studies. The voluntary standard did not specify upper limits.
In the early 1980s, the assessment of diagnostic ultrasound risk was addressed by two major
activities. One of the activities was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health
consensus development conference processes139) by convening an expert panel of
physicians, basic scientists, epidemiologists, nurses, educators, and sonographers to provide
answers to specific questions related to safety and efficacy of diagnostic ultrasound in
obstetric practice. The document indicated that the increasing use of ultrasound during
pregnancy is safe and effective for 28 medical conditions. This was, perhaps, the first
time that the issue of diagnostic ultrasound efficacy was critically reviewed. Also, this
process recommended against routine scanning of the embryo and fetus. Further, it was
suggested that while diagnostic ultrasound does not appear to be associated with any known
hazards, investigators should continue to evaluate risks.
The other activity was conducted under the auspices of the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements.140) The document rigorously covered the basic physics
of ultrasound with an emphasis on medical ultrasound fields and on the quantification of various
ultrasonic field quantities to which humans were exposed during the course of an ultrasound
examination. Also included were mechanisms by which ultrasound interacts with biological material
and effects caused by ultrasound on biological materials such as plants, animals, and in vitro
systems. Finally, this document set forth a number of recommendations that fell into the categories
of research needs, industrial practices, education, and exposure criteria. It is interesting that
a number of the recommendations were consistent with those put forth by the Workshop on the
Interaction of Ultrasound and Biological Tissues104) a decade earlier.
When the FDA initiated the regulation of diagnostic ultrasound equipment in the mid
1980s,141) it set application-specific intensity limits in their
1985 "510(k) premarket notification" which manufactures could not exceed (see
Table I). This notification is used by the FDA to determine if the new devices are
substantially equivalent, in safety and effectiveness, to diagnostic ultrasound devices
on the market prior to May 28,1976, the date when the Medical Device Amendments were
enacted. The exposure quantities required by FDA were, in part, similar to those in the
Safety Standard for Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment voluntary standard’s labeling
requirements.138) However, the limits were not based on safety
considerations but rather on the maximum output limits of known diagnostic ultrasound
equipment at the time when the Medical Devices Amendments were enacted, in May, 1976;
hence the term pre-amendments levels.
Table I: FDA’s pre-amendments levels of diagnostic ultrasound devices (FDA, 1985).
|Derated Intensity Values
|Fetal Imaging and Other*
* Abdominal, Intraoperative, Small Organ (breast, thyroid, testes),
Neonatal Cephalic, Adult Cephalic
To emphasize the date-base regulation approach as opposed to the
safety- and efficacy-base regulation approach of the FDA, the American
Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine notified142) the FDA in
mid 1986 that there existed prior to May 28, 1976 at least two diagnostic
ultrasound devices (pre-enactment ultrasound devices) with intensity
levels greater than those listed in Table I. In early 1987, the FDA
updated their diagnostic ultrasound guidance to higher intensity
levels143) to those listed in Table II. The date-based
regulation approach has been criticized by technical, scientific,
and medical professionals, as well as by the diagnostic ultrasound
industry144) because of the implication that these arbitrary
limits are safety based, and because they could limit future clinical
benefits by preventing the development of more advanced diagnostic
ultrasound systems, and hence greater clinical benefit, that may require
higher output levels. Further, it must be recognized that limited
diagnostic ultrasound capabilities may, in fact, be responsible for
greater risk to the patient due to either an inadequate diagnosis, or
to the use of an additional diagnostic procedure with a defined risk.
Table II: FDA’s pre-amendments levels of diagnostic ultrasound devices (FDA, 1987).
|Derated Intensity Values
|Fetal Imaging and Other*
* Abdominal, Intraoperative, Small Organ (breast, thyroid, testes),
Neonatal Cephalic, Adult Cephalic
5. Where we are at now (since the mid 1980s)
This is the period that introduced to clinical practice ideas for
which the background was investigated years ago such as harmonic
imaging (tissue nonlinearity properties investigated in the early
1980s145)), contrast agents (originally proposed and
demonstrated in the late 1960s106,107)), three-dimensional
imaging to a limited extent (first paper published in 1970146))
and composite transducers to a limited extent (introduced in the late
This is also the period for which a number of equipment, techniques
and/or clinical innovations are being investigated, but which have not
yet made it into routine clinical practice such as elastic imaging,148,149)
high-frequency imaging,150) three-dimensional microvascular
imaging,151) Doppler tomography,152) nondiffracting
beam transducers,153) phase aberration corrections,154)
relaxor transducer materials155) and two-dimensional arrays.156,157)
Within the past decade, there have been substantial improvements, through
national and international efforts, in our understanding to identify the
biological interactions diagnostic ultrasound exposures may have with soft
tissues, including both thermal158-160) and acoustic cavitation-like160,161)
phenomena. These reports have provided, in part, the basis for the development
of a new approach to regulate diagnostic ultrasound equipment (see below).
It had been long thought that diagnostic ultrasound exposures could not produce
biological damage. However, in the early 1990s, based on initial observations in
the late 1980s from lithotropsy experiments, diagnostic ultrasound-type pulses at
diagnostic pressure levels have produced significant damage (lung hemorrhage) in
mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys, the first observation being in mice.162)
There are open questions yet about whether this effect occurs in humans.
A diagnostic ultrasound educational activity was initiated with a workshop in
June, 1988. This workshop set out certain principles which resulted in the
initiation of a three-year process involving numerous clinicians, scientists,
engineers and government regulators from many organizations; this group finalized
and approved, in 1992, the Standard for Real-Time Display of Thermal and
Mechanical Indices on Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment, commonly referred to
as the Output Display Standard.163) The purpose of this voluntary
standard was to provide the capability for users of diagnostic ultrasound equipment
to operate their systems at levels much higher than previously had been possible
in order to have the potential for greater diagnostic capabilities; the standard
did not specify any upper limits. In doing so, the possibility existed for the
potential to do harm to the patient. Therefore, two biophysical indices were
provided so that the equipment operator has real-time information available to
make appropriate clinical decisions, viz., benefit vs. risk,
and to implement the ALARA (As Low As
Reasonable Achievable) principle, that is, the
Output Display Standard provides for a real-time output display which gives the
user information about the potential for temperature increase (the Thermal Index)
and mechanical damage (the Mechanical Index).
Following the adoption of the voluntary Output Display Standard, the FDA revised
its diagnostic ultrasound regulatory guidelines by essentially adopted the Output
Display Standard. However, since the Output Display Standard did not include upper
limits, the FDA added application-nonspecific guidelines164,165)
as regulatory upper limits based on a derated spatial peak, temporal average
intensity, ISPTA, value of 720 mW/cm2 and a Mechanical
Index, MI, value of 1.9. The ISPTA upper limit appears
to still be based on the maximum pre-1976 value since there is still no scientific
basis for this value. However, the MI upper limit is, in part, based on experimental
To complement the Output Display Standard, a number of professional societies
have developed a brochure167) to satisfy, in part, the FDA user educational
requirement.164,165) The brochure is divided into three parts. Part One
describes ultrasound-induced bioeffects and why we should be concerned about them.
Part Two describes the risks and benefits of conducting diagnostic examinations and
introduces the concept of ALARA. Using the ALARA principle, the intent is to obtain
needed diagnostic information with minimum risk to the patient. Part Three describes
how to implement the ALARA principle on equipment with and without an output display.
6. Final Thoughts
All evidence, or lack thereof, suggests that diagnostic ultrasound does not
represent a risk to patients. It is the view of this author that the reason for
such a remarkable record is the rigid regulatory control the FDA has exercised
over this diagnostic modality, a level of control unmatched by any other radiological
imaging modality. The result of this rigid control has required diagnostic ultrasonic
manufacturers to limit the output of their equipment to specific output levels that
were achievable more than 20 years ago. To what extent the clinical capabilities of
diagnostic ultrasound systems could reach if such rigid controls were not imposed is
left only to speculation. Likewise, the issue of patient risk to left to speculation.
To rigidly control without a good scientific justification benefits no one, particularly
the patient. The physician is a professional trained to provide health care by making
informed benefit-risk judgements. The FDA’s regulatory approach had denied the
physician the need to become informed about such benefit-risk issues, and
for that, we are all worse off.
The author gratefully acknowledge support from the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics,
and Frequency Control Society through the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
Control Society Distinguished Lecture Program, and from the following NIH grants:
CA09067, HD21687 and HL58218.
1)F. V. Hunt: Origins of Acoustics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978).
2)R. B. Lindsey: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39 (1966) 629.
3)I. Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Cambridge: Royal Society London, 1687).
4)J. W. S. Rayleigh: The Theory of Sound (New York: Dover, 1945).
5)J. P. Joule: Phil. Mag. 30 (1847) 21.
6)J. Curie and P. Curie: Bulletin de la Société Minéralogique de France 3 (1880) 90. and also published in Comp. Rend. 91 (1880) 294 and 383.
7)F. V. Hunt: Electroacoustics: The Analysis of Transduction, and Its Historical Background (New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1982).
8)P. Langevin: French Patent No. 505,703 (filed September 17, 1917; issued August 5, 1920)
9)L. F. Richardson: British Patent No. 9423 (filed April 20 , 1912; issued March 6, 1913)
10)L. F. Richardson: British Patent No. 11,125 (filed May 10 , 1912; issued March 27, 1913)
11)R. A. Fessenden. Reported in Hunt7) that "this echo-ranging ‘first’ on April 27, 1914 is recorded in an official report by Captain J. H. Quinan appearing in the U. S. Hydrographic Office Bulletin for May 13, 1914."
12)R. W. Wood and A. L. Loomis: Philos. Mag. (VII) 4 (1927) 417.
13)E. N. Harvey: Biological Bulletin 59 (1930) 306.
14)H. Freundlich, K. Söllner and F. Rogowski: Klin. Wochenschr. 11 (1932) 1512.
15)R. W. Boyle and J. F. Lehmann: Phys Rev (II) 27 (1926) 518.
16)R. W. Boyle: Nature, London 120 (1927) 476.
17)R. W. Boyle and G. B. Taylor: Phys Rev (II) 27 (1929) 518.
18)F. O. Schmitt and B. Uhlemeyer: Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 27 (1930) 626.
19)F. W. Kremkau: J. Clin. Ultrasound 7 (1979) 287.
20)C. R. Hill: Brit. J. Radiol. 46 (1973) 899.
21)J. G. Lynn, R. L. Zwemer, A. J. Chick and A. F. Miller: J. Gen. Physiol. 26 (1942) 179.
22)J. G. Lynn and T. J. Putman: Am. J. Pathol. 20 (1944) 637.
23)W. J. Fry, J. W. Barnard, F. J. Fry, R. F. Krumins, and J. F. Brennan: Science 122 (1955) 517.
24)G. R. ter Haar, in Physical Principles of Medical Ultrasound, C. R. Hill (ed) 436 (New York: Wiley, 1986).
25)S. Sokolov: Phys. Z. 36 (1935) 142, and Techn. Physics USSR 2 (1935) 522.
26)F. A. Firestone, US Patent 2,280,226, April 1942.
27)F. A. Firestone: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 17 (1946) 287.
28)F. A. Firestone: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 18 (1946) 200.
29)K. T. Dussik, F. Dussik and L. Wyt: Wien. Med. Wschr. 97 (1947) 425.
30)P. N. T. Wells: in Handbook of Clinical Ultasound, M. de Vlieger et al., (eds) 3 (New York: Wiley, 1978).
31)W. R. Hendee and J. H. Holmes: in Medical Physics of CT and Ultrasound: Tissue Imaging and Characterization, G. D. Fullerton and J. A. Zagzebski (eds.) 298 (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1980).
32)J. J. Wild: Surgery 27 (1950) 183.
33)L. A. French, J. J. Wild and D. Neal: Cancer 3 (1950) 705.
34)J. J. Wild and J. M. Reid: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (1953) 270.
35)G. D. Ludwig and F. W. Struthers: Electronics 23 (1950) 172.
36)D. H. Howry and W. R. Bliss: J. Lab. Clin. Med. 40 (1952) 579.
37)J. J. Wild and J. M. Reid: Science 115 (1952) 226.
38)J. J. Wild and J. M. Reid: Am. J. Path. 28 (1952) 839.
39)W. P. Mason: Phys. Rev. 72 (1947) 854.
40)S. Roberts: Phys. Rev. 25 (1947) 890.
41)B. Jaffe, R. S. Roth and S. Marzullo: J. Appl. Phys. 25 (1954) 809.
42)J. M. Reid and J. J. Wild: IRE Trans Ultrason. Engr. PGUE-5 (1957) 44.
43)W. C. Röntgen: Sitzungsber der Würzberger Physik-Medic, 1895. Translated in: O. Glasser, Dr. W. C. Röntgen (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1945).
44)C. E. Dunlap: Arch. Path. 34 (1942) 562.
45)H. J. Müller: Science 66 (1927) 84.
46)L. J. Stadler: Science 68 (1928) 186.
47)L. J. Stadler: Proc. Nat’l. Acad. Sci. 14 (1928) 69.
48)S. C. Bushong: The Development of Radiation Protection in Diagnostic Radiology (Cleveland, OH: CRC Press, 1973).
49)International X-Ray Unit of Intensity, Report No. 2: (Washington, DC: International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements, 1928). Also published in Brit. J. Radiol. 1 (1928) 363.
50)G. Failla and P. S. Henshaw: Radiology 17 (1931) 1.
51)H. M. Parker: Adv. Biol. Med. Phys. 1 (1948) 223.
52)Recommendation of the International Committee for Radiological Units, Report 7: (Washington, DC: International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements, 1954). Also published in Radiology 62 (1954) 106.
53)International Committee for Radiological Units and Measurements, Report No. 8, NBS Handbook 62: (Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1956).
54)S. P. Hicks: Arch. Path. 57 (1954) 363.
55)W. L. Russell: Proc. Int. Cong. Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy 11 (1955) 382 and 401.
56)W. L. Russell: Am. Nat. 90 (1956) 69.
57)L. A. French, J. J. Wild and D. Neal: Cancer 4 (1951) 342.
58)W. J. Fry, W. J. Wulff, D. Tucker and F. J. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22 (1950) 867.
59)W. J. Fry, D. Tucker, F. J. Fry and W. J. Wulff: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 23 (1951) 364.
60)T. F. Hueter, H. T. Ballantine, Jr. and W C. Cotter: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 28 (1956) 192.
61)F. J. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30 (1958) 387.
62)G. Baum: Am. J. Ophthalmol. 42 (1956) 696.
63)L. Leksell: Acta. Chir. Scand. 110 (1955) 301.
64)D. Gordon: Rev. Neurol. 99 (1958) 652.
65)K. Tanaka, S. Kikuchi, K. Ito, M. Ishii, S. Katsumi, T. Wagai, Y. Kikuchi and R. Uehida: J. Jpn. Surg. Soc. 61 (1960) 761.
66)G. H. Mundt and W. F. Hughes: Am. J. Ophthalmol. 41 (1956) 488.
67)G. Baum and I. Greenwood: Arch. Ophthalmol. 60 (1958) 263.
68)G. Baum and I. Greenwood: Am. J. Ophthalmol. 46 (1958) 319.
69)I. Elder and C. H. Hertz: Kungl. Fysiograf. Sällsk Lund. Förhandl. 24 (1954) 5.
70)I. Elder and A. Gustafson: Acta. Med. Scand. 154 (1957) 85.
71)I. Donald and T. G. Brown: Brit. J. Radiol. 34 (1961) 539.
72)I. Donald: Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1 (1974) 109.
73)S. Hayashi, T. Wagai, R. Miyazawa, K. Ito, S. Ishikawa, K. Uomatsu, Y. Kikuchi and R. Uchida: Western J. Surg. Obstet. Gynec. 70 (1962) 34.
74)I. Donald: Med. Biol. Illustr. 14 (1964) 216.
75)J. H. Holmes, W. Wright, E. P. Meyer et al: Am. J. Med. Electron 4 (1965) 147.
76)P. N. T. Wells: World Med. Electron 4 (1966) 272.
77)L. Filipczynski, J. Etienne and G. Lypacewicz: Proc. Vibr. Probl. 7 (1966) 211.
78)H. P. Kalmus: Rev. Sci. Instr. 25 (1954) 201.
79)H. P. Kalmus, A. L. Hedrich and D. R. Pardue: IRE Trans. Prof. Group Ultrason. Engr. 1 (1954) 49.
80)E. J. Baldes, W. R. Farral, M. C. Haugen and J. F. Herrick: in Ultrasound in Biology and Medicine E. Kelly (ed) 165 (Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1957).
81)S. Satomura: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 29 (1957) 1181.
82)S. Satomura: J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. 15 (1959) 151.
83)F. D. McLeod: Proc. 17th Annual Conf. Engr. Med. Biol. (1964) 81.
84)D. W. Baker and D. Watkins: Proc. 20th Annual Conf. Engr. Med. Biol. (1967) 27.2.
85)P. N. T. Wells: Med. Biol. Eng. 7 (1969) 641.
86)D. W. Baker: IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. SU-17 (1970) 170.
87)D. J. Mozersky, D. E. Hokanson, D. W. Baker et al: Arch. Surg. 103 (1971) 663.
88)J. M. Reid and M. P. Spencer: Science 176 (1972) 1235.
89)W. J. Fry and R. B. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26 (1954) 296.
90)W. J. Fry and R. B. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26 (1954) 311.
91)W. J. Fry and F. Dunn: IRE Trans. Ultrason. Engr. UE-5 (1957) 59.
92)F. Dunn and J. E. Breyer: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34 (1962) 775.
93)L. Filipczynski: Proc. Vibr. Probl. 8 (1967) 21.
94)P. N. T. Wells, M. A. Bullen, D. H. Follett, H. F. Freundlich and J. A. James: Ultrasonics 1 (1963) 106.
95)J. A. Newell: Phys. Med. Biol. 8 (1963) 215.
96)G. Kossoff: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 38 (1965) 880.
97)W. J. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (1953) 1.
98)P. D. Wall, D. Tucker, F. J. Fry and W. H. Mosberg: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (1953) 281.
99)W. J. Fry and R. B. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (1953) 6.
100)J. F. Herrick: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (1953) 12.
101)J. F. Lehmann: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (1953) 17.
102)E. Kelly (ed): Ultrasound in Biology and Medicine. Publication No. 3 (Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1957).
103)E. Kelly (ed): Ultrasonic Energy: Biological Investigations and Medical Applications (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1965).
104)J. M. Reid and M. R. Sikov (eds): Interaction of Ultrasound and Biological Tissues, DHEW Publication (FDA) 73-8008 (Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 1972).
105)H. F. Stewart and M. E. Stratmeyer (eds): An Overview of Ultrasound: Theory, Measurement, Medical Applications, and Biological Effects, HHS Publication FDA 82-8190 (Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 1982).
106)F. W. Kremkau: Ultrasonic Detection of Cavitation at Catheter Tips, MS Thesis, (The University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 1969).
107)F. Kremkau, R. Gramiak, E. Carstensen, P. Shah and D. Kramer: Am. J. Roentgenology, Radium Ther., Nuc. Med. 110 (1970) 177.
108)W. F. Brinkman, D. E. Haggan and W. W. Troutman: IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 32 (1997) 1858.
109)M. Campbell-Kelly and W. Aspray: Computer - A History of the Information Machine (New York: BasicBooks, 1996).
110)G. Kossoff and W. J. Garrett: Aust. N. Zeal. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 12 (1972) 117.
111)G. Kossoff, W. J. Garrett and G. Radovanovich: Australian Radiology 68 (1974) 62.
112)J. M. Griffith and W. L. Henry: Circulation 49 (1974) 1147.
113)N. Bom: Excerpta Medica 227 (1973) no. 2.
114)N. Bom, C. T. Lancée, G. van Zwieten, F. E. Kloster and J. Roelandt: Circulation 48 (1973) 1066.
115)J. C. Somer: Ultrasonics 6 (1968) 153.
116)O. T. von Ramm and F. L. Thurston: Proc. 25th Annual Conf. Engr. Med. Biol. (1972) 141.
117)F. L Thurston and O. T. von Ramm: Acoustical Holography 5 (1974) 249.
118)D. A. Carpenter and G. Kossoff: in Ultrasound in Medicine, vol. 3B, D. White and R. E. Brown (eds), pp. 1785-1786, 1977.
119)W. J. Fry, G. H. Leichner, D. Okuyama, F. J. Fry and E. K. Fry: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 44 (1968) 1324.
120)H. Yokio and K. Ito: Toshiba Rev. (1972) 14.
121)F. E. Barber, D. W. Baker, A. W. C. Nation, D. E. Strandness and J. M. Reid: IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME-21 (1974) 109.
122)K. Namekawa, C. Kasai, M. Tsukamoto and A. Koyano: in Ultrasound ‘82, R Lerski and P. Morley (eds), pp. 203-208 (New York: Pergamon Press, 1982).
123)C. Kasai, K. Namekawa, A. Koyano and R. Omoto: IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. SU-32 (1985) 458.
124)M. A. Breazeale and F. Dunn: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 55 (1974) 671.
125)F. Dunn, A. J. Averbuch and W. D. O’Brien, Jr.: Acustica 38 (1977) 58.
126)G. M. Sessler: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70 (1981) 1596.
127)P. A. Lewin: Ultrasonics 19 (1981) 213.
128)A. S. DeReggi, S. C. Roth, J. M. Kenney, S. Edelman and G. R. Harris: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69 (1981) 853.
129)D. R. Bacon: IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. SU-29 (1982) 18.
130)G. R. Harris: IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. SU-29 (1982) 370.
131)R. C. Preston, D. R. Bacon, A. J. Livett and K. Rajendran: J. Phys. E: Sci. Instr. 16 (1983) 786.
132)S. E. Fick, F. R. Breckenridge, C. E. Tschiegg and D. G. Eitzen: NBS J. Res. 89 (1984) 209.
133)R. A. Smith: The calibration of hydrophones for use in medical ultrasonic fields - A review NPL Report Ac 108 (Teddington, Middlesex, UK: National Physical Laboratory, 1986).
134)I. J. C. Macintosh and D. A. Davey: Brit. Med. J. 4 (1970) 92.
135)I. J. C. Macintosh, R. C. Brown and W. T. Coakley: Brit. J. Radiol. 48 (1975) 230.
136)D. Liebeskind, R. Bases, F. Mendex, F. Elequin and M. Koenigsberg: Science 205 (1979) 1273.
137)S. A. Goss: J. Ultrasound Med. 3 (1984) 463.
138)Safety Standard for Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. AIUM/NEMA Standards Publication No. UL 1-1981 (AIUM Publications, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 14750 Sweitzer Lane, Suite 100, Laurel, MD 20707). Also published in J. Ultrasound Med. 2 (April 1983) Sl-S50.
139)Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging in Pregnancy. Report of an NIH Consensus Development Conference NIH Publication No. 84-667 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1984).
140)Biological Effects of Ultrasound: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications, NCRP Report No. 74 (Bethesda, MD; National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1984).
141)501(k) Guide for Measuring and Reporting Acoustic Output of Diagnostic Ultrasound Medical Devices (Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, December, 1985).
142)Letter from AIUM President and AIUM Standards Committee Chair to Director, FDS’s CDRH Office of Device Evaluation and Acting Director, FDA’s CDRH Office of Science and Technology, June 23, 1986.
143)Diagnostic Ultrasound Guidance Update (Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, January 30, 1987).
144)C. R. B. Merritt: Radiology 173 (1989) 304.
145)W. K. Law, L. A. Frizzell and F. Dunn: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69 (1981) 1210.
146)J. F. Greenleaf, J. S. Tu and E. H. Wood: IEEE Trans. Nuclear Science NS-17 (1970) 353.
147)R. E. Newnham, L. J. Bowen, K. A. Klicker and L. E. Cross: Mat. Eng. 2 (1980) 93.
148)K. J. Parker, S. R. Huang, R. A. Musulin and R. M. Lerner: Ultrason. Med. Biol. 16 (1990) 241.
149)J. Ophir, E. Céspedes, H. Ponnekanti, Y. Yazdi and X. Li: Ultrason. Imaging 13 (1991) 111.
150)C. J. Pavlin, M. D. Sherar and F. S. Foster: Ophthalmology 97 (1990) 244.
151)K. W. Ferrara, B. G. Zagar, S. Rosenberg, J. B. Sokil-Nekgar, R. H. Silverman and I. M. Aslanidis: IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr. 43 (1996) 149.
152)K. Nagai and J. F. Greenleaf: Optical Engineering 29 (1990) 1249.
153)J-y. Lu and J. F. Greenleaf: IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr. 37 (1990) 438.
154)S. W. Flax and M. O’Donnell: IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr. 35 (1988) 758.
155)J-y. Lu, T. K. Song, J. F. Greenleaf, and C. G. Oakley: Proceedings of SPIE - New Developments in Ultrasonic Transducers and Transducer Systems 1733 (1992) 37
156)J. D. Plummer, R. G. Swartz, M. G. Maginness, J. R. Beaudouin and J. D. Meindl: IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. SU-25 (1978) 273.
157)S. W. Smith, G. E. Trahey and O. T. von Raam: Proc. IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium (1991) 625.
158)Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: I. Criteria Based on Thermal Mechanisms, Report No. 113 (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1992).
159)WFUMB Symposium on Safety and Standardization in Medical Ultrasound: Issues and Recommendations Regarding Thermal Mechanisms for Biological Effects of Ultrasound, S. B. Barnett and G. Kossoff, G (eds) (World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology). Published in Ultrasound Med. Biol. 18 (1992) 731.
160)Bioeffects and Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound (American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, AIUM Publications, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 14750 Sweitzer Lane, Suite 100, Laurel, MD 20707, 1993).
161)WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine: Conclusions and Recommendations on Thermal and Non-Thermal Mechanisms for Biological Effects of Ultrasound, S. B. Barnett (ed), World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 1996.
162)S. Z. Child, C. L. Hartman, L. A. Schery and E. L. Carstensen: Ultrasound Med. Biol. 16 (1990) 817.
163)Standard for Real-Time Display of Thermal and Mechanical Indices on Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment (AIUM Publications, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 14750 Sweitzer Lane, Suite 100, Laurel, MD 20707, 1992).
164)Revised 510(k) Diagnostic Ultrasound Guidance for 1993 (Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, February 17, 1993).
165)Use of Mechanical Index in Place of Spatial Peak, Pulse Average Intensity in Determining Substantial Equivalence (Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, April 14, 1994).
166)W. D. O’Brien, Jr. and J. F. Zachary: IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr. 44 (1997) 473.
167)Medical Ultrasound Safety (AIUM Publications, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 14750 Sweitzer Lane, Suite 100, Laurel, MD 20707, 1994).
BRL Projects >> Ultrasound Bioeffects