Experience of the Original Phantom-Based Training in Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of a contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) training programmed that incorporates a phantombased learning module.
Materials and methods: Twenty-four participants (13 practicing sonographers, 6 residents, 5 senior medical students; clinical experience 0–21 years) completed a one-day, 10-hour learning CEUS course. Hands-on practice was performed on a proprietary Russian dual-circuit phantom (patent RU 2611905 C2) that reproduces normal perfusion and three focal lesions—aneurysm, cavernous haemangioma and hyper-vascular metastasis—using standard microbubble contrast agents. Training efficacy was assessed pre- and post-course with a multiple-choice test, a 10-item practical checklist (0–20) and the Team Performance Observation Tool (team index 1–5).
Results: All metrics improved significantly: test 5,0 ± 1,0 → 8,0 ± 1,0 (Δ = +3,0; p < 0,001; d = 2,0); checklist 7,0 ± 2,0 → 17 ± 1,0 (Δ = +10,0; p < 0,001; d = 6,3); team index 2,0 ± 1,0 → 4,0 ± 1,0 (Δ = +2,0; p < 0,001; d = 1,0). The pass threshold (≥ 70 % test and ≥ 80 % checklist) was reached by 22/24 (92 %) participants (McNemar χ² = 20.2; p < 0.001). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.80 for the test, 0.86 for the checklist); inter-rater reliability of the checklist was excellent (ICC = 0.92; 95 % CI 0.86–0.97). The correlation between years of experience and practical score decreased from ρ = 0.45 (p = 0.03) pre-course to ρ = 0.28 (p = 0.18) postcourse; one-way ANOVA revealed no post-course differences across four experience groups (p > 0.10). Overall satisfaction (VAS) was 9.1 ± 0.7, with highest ratings for “phantom practice” (9.5) and “mentor feedback” (9.3).
Conclusion: A single-day, 10-hour module based on the first domestic CEUS phantom produces a large gain in theoretical knowledge and practical skills and enables rapid attainment of Level 1 competence specified by EFSUMB/WFUMB guidelines. The Russian-made phantom is less expensive than imported analogues, is exempt from Government Decree No. 616 import restrictions, and can be recommended as a mandatory simulation stage in the certification of ultrasound physicians learning CEUS.

1. Dietrich CF, Albrecht T, Becher H, et al. History of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Med Ultrason. 2024;26(4):405-16. https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4366

2. Frinkin P, Segers T, Luan Y, et al. Three decades of ultrasound contrast agents: review of the past to inform the future. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(4):892-908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.12.008.

3. Toshikazy I, Hironobu M, Michiyo K, et al. Current status and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions. J Med Ultrason. 2024;51(4):611-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-024-01486-0.

4. Kozubova KV, Koroleva TA, Belov DV. Comparative efficiency of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and CT in differentiating focal liver lesions in oncologic patients. Medical Imaging. 2023;69(5):897-907. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2023-69-5-897-907

5. Peniaeva EI, Kamalov YR, Sencha YN. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of hepatic tumors. Medical Imaging. 2017;(2):36-52. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24835/1607‑0763‑2017‑2‑36‑52

6. Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L, et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall Med. 2004;25:249-256. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-813245

7. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) — update 2008. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29(1):28-44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-963785.

8. Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF, et al. EFSUMB clinical practice guidelines for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications — update 2011. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33:33-59. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281676

9. Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver — Update 2012. A WFUMB-EFSUMB Initiative in Cooperation With Representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall in Med. 2013;34:11-29. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1325499

10. Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on non-hepatic contrast-enhanced ultrasound: update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall Med. 2018;39(2):e2-e44. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0586-1107

11. Dietrich CF, Nolsøe C, Barr RG, et al. Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver — Update 2020. WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultrasound in Med. & Biol. 2020;46(10):2579-2604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.04.030. Epub 2020 Jul 24

12. Dietrich CF, Correas JM, Cui XW, et al. EFSUMB technical review 2023: dynamic CEUS for perfusion quantification. Ultraschall Med. 2024;45(1):36-46. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2157-2587

13. Strom JB, Appis A, Barr RG, et al. Multi-societal expert consensus on the safe administration of ultrasound contrast agents. Echo Res Pract. 2025;12(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44156-024-00068-7

14. Wilson SR, Greenbaum LD, Goldberg BB, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: what is the evidence and what are the obstacles? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(1):55-60. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2553.

15. Bredahl KK, Taudorf M, Lönn L, et al. Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound can Replace Computed Tomography Angiography for Surveillance After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52(6):729-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.07.007.

16. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, et al. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005 Jan;27(1):10-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500046924.

17. Rominger MB, Müller-Stuler EM, Pinto M, et al. Easy Pulsatile Phantom for Teaching and Validation of Flow Measurements in Ultrasound. Ultrasound Int Open. 2016;2(3):E93-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-106396.

18. Rudakovskaya PG, Barmin RA, Kuzmin PS, et al. Microbubbles Stabilized by Protein Shell: From Pioneering Ultrasound Contrast Agents to Advanced Theranostic Systems. Pharmaceutics. 2022:14: 12-36. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14061236

19. Ho LM, Ronald J, Wildman-Tobriner B. Increasing utilization of contrast-enhanced ultrasound during abdominal biopsies: impact of an educational training program. J Ultrasound. 2024;27(2):329-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-023-00862‑9.

20. Education and Practical Standards Committee, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound. Ultraschall Med. 2006;27(1):79-105. https://doi.org/10.1055/s‑2006‑933605.

21. Minimum training requirements for the practice of Medical Ultrasound in Europe. Ultraschall Med. 2010;31(4):426-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1263214.

22. Venidiktova DY, Borsukov AV, Titov SV. Device for training in diagnosing internal organ pathology using echo-contrast. Patent RU 2611905; 2017. (In Russ.).

23. Kheawwan P, Thanomlikhit C, Narajeeenron K. et al. Translation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of TeamSTEPPS® team performance observation tool. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 2023;38(3):573-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2024.2307547.

24. Zhang C, Miller C, Volkman K, et al. Evaluation of the team performance observation tool with targeted behavioral markers in simulation-based interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(3):202-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.982789.

25. Sawyer T, Laubach VA, Hudak J, et al. Improvements in teamwork during neonatal resuscitation after interprofessional TeamSTEPPS training. Neonatal Netw. 2013;32(1):26-33. https://doi.org/10.1891/0730-0832.32.1.26.

26. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18(4):1007-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700009934.

27. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(7):798-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x.

28. Terkamp C, Kirchner G, Wedemeyer J, et al. Simulation of abdomen sonography. Evaluation of a new ultrasound simulator. Ultraschall Med. 2003;24(04):239-44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-41713

29. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, et al. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 2. New York: Longmans, Green, 1964.

30. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2001, 352 p.

31. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1990. 611 p.

32. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics Notes: The use of transformation when comparing two means. BMJ. 1996;312:1153. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7039.1153.

33. Tukey JW. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics. 1949;5(2):99-114.

34. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57(1):289-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.

35. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol. 1904;15(1):72-101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159.

36. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

37. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-8. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420.

38. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika. 1947;12(2):153-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295996.

39. Tikhankova AV, Borsukov AV, Buyeverov AO, et al. Improved methods of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound in patient with chronic viral hepatitis. Journal of Clinical Practice. 2019;10(1):4-9. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17816/clinpract1014-9/

40. Gorbatyenko OA, Borsukov AV. Method for determining arterial-phase duration in renal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in patients with angionephrosclerosis. Youth and Medical Science. 2022:11-12. (In Russ.).

41. Tikhankova AV, Borsukov AV. Capabilities of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diffuse liver diseases: a chronic viral hepatitis model. Hepatology and Gastroenterology. 2022;6(1):25-31. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25298/2616-5546-2022-6-1-25-31.

42. Borsukov AV, Bueverov AO, Tikhankova AV. Semiquantitative assessment of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in chronic viral hepatitis. Doctor.ru. 2019;8(163):28-34. https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2019-163-8-28-34. (In Russ.).

43. Borsukov AV, Gorbatyenko OA. Renal hemodynamic changes assessed by contrast-enhanced ultrasound in type 2 diabetes patients with different clinical courses. Regional Blood Circulation and Microcirculation. 2023;22(1):24-33. https://doi.org/10.24884/1682-6655-2023-22-1-24-33. (In Russ.).

44. Schwarze V, Marschner C, de Figueiredo GN, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnostic evaluation of popliteal artery aneurysms, a single-center study. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;76(2):191-7. https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-209214.

45. Bredahl KK, Taudorf M, Lönn L, et al. Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound can Replace Computed Tomography Angiography for Surveillance After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52(6):729-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.07.007.

46. Sandulescu LD, Urhut CM, Sandulescu SM, et al. One stop shop approach for the diagnosis of liver hemangioma. World J Hepatol. 2021 Dec 27;13(12):1892-908. https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v13.i12.1892.

47. Kacała A, Dorochowicz M, Matus I, et al. Hepatic Hemangioma: Review of Imaging and Therapeutic Strategies. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(3):449. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60030449.

48. Bhayana D, Kim TK, Jang HJ, et al. Hypervascular liver masses on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the importance of washout. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):977-83. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3375.

49. Kong WT, Ji ZB, Wang WP, et al. Evaluation of Liver Metastases Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: Enhancement Patterns and Influencing Factors. Gut Liver. 2016;10(2):283-7. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl14324.