The choice of viscous or viscoelastic models affects attenuation and velocity determination in simplified skull-mimicking digital phantoms

Summary

This paper investigates how the choice between viscous and viscoelastic acoustic models impacts predictions of ultrasound attenuation and phase velocity in simplified skull-mimicking digital phantoms containing microstructural pores. It reveals that while both models predict increased attenuation with pore size, they differ significantly in the peak attenuation values and their dependence on porosity, with viscoelastic models also showing less sensitivity to pore size for phase velocity. These distinct behaviors underscore the critical importance of selecting an appropriate acoustic model for accurately estimating skull acoustic properties in transcranial focused ultrasound therapies.

Medical Relevance

Accurate estimation of skull acoustic properties is crucial for the safe and effective delivery of transcranial focused ultrasound (tFUS) therapies, which treat neurological conditions; this paper demonstrates that the underlying acoustic model chosen for these estimations significantly impacts predicted ultrasound propagation, directly affecting treatment planning and outcomes.

AI Health Application

Not directly applicable; this research focuses on improving the underlying physical models for ultrasound propagation. However, the improved acoustic models developed or validated through this work could be integrated into AI-driven medical image analysis systems or AI-based treatment planning algorithms for transcranial focused ultrasound, enhancing their accuracy and reliability.

Key Points

• The study employed viscous and viscoelastic k-Wave simulations to model the transmission of a broadband 625 kHz tone burst (250 kHz-1 MHz) through skull-mimicking digital phantoms.
• Phantoms were designed with simplified microstructures, containing spherical pores (0.1-1.0 mm diameter) randomly embedded within cortical bone, with porosity ranging from 2.5% to 90%.
• Both viscous and viscoelastic models predict an increase in ultrasound attenuation with larger pore sizes at a fixed porosity, but they exhibit significant differences in the strength and porosity dependence of this relationship.
• The viscoelastic model generally predicts attenuation peaks at higher porosities than the viscous model; specifically, for 1.0 mm pores, the viscous peak (1.98 Np/cm) occurred at 20% porosity, while the viscoelastic peak (2.98 Np/cm) was observed at 70%.
• Phase velocity decreases with increasing pore size for both acoustic models, although the viscoelastic model's predictions show considerably less sensitivity to pore size variations.
• The findings demonstrate that the choice between viscous and viscoelastic models leads to distinct attenuation and phase-velocity behaviors for idealized bone microstructures, highlighting that microstructure strongly impacts attenuation, but has a lesser effect on phase velocity under the viscoelastic model compared to the viscous model.
• The research emphasizes the critical importance of acoustic model choice when estimating skull acoustic properties from computed tomography (CT) images for simulation-guided transcranial focused ultrasound therapies.

Clinical Impact

The findings directly impact the accuracy of simulation-guided transcranial focused ultrasound therapies. By demonstrating that different acoustic models yield substantially different predictions for ultrasound propagation through skull microstructure, this work underscores the need for careful model selection to ensure precise targeting, appropriate energy deposition, and safety margins, ultimately improving the efficacy and reducing risks of tFUS treatments based on pretreatment imaging.

Limitations

The study utilized "simplified skull-mimicking digital phantoms" with "idealized bone microstructures" (spherical pores), which may not fully capture the complex, anisotropic, and irregular pore geometries found in real skull bone.

Future Directions

Future research will focus on identifying and validating which specific acoustic model (viscous, viscoelastic, or potentially others) most accurately represents ultrasound propagation through the actual microstructure of human skull bone.

Medical Domains

Keywords

Abstract

Simulation-guided transcranial focused ultrasound therapies rely on estimating skull acoustic properties from pretreatment imaging. Typical clinical resolution (0.5 mm isotropic) cannot resolve bone microstructure, making the acoustic properties underdetermined and sensitive to modeling assumptions. Here, we examine how viscous and viscoelastic models predict changes in attenuation and phase velocity due to microstructure. Using viscous and viscoelastic k-Wave implementations, we simulated transmission of a broadband 625 kHz tone burst (250 kHz-1 MHz) through skull-mimicking digital phantoms. The phantoms contained spherical pores (0.1-1.0 mm diameter) randomly embedded within cortical bone (2.5%-90% porosity). Virtual sensors measured attenuation and phase velocity using a time-distance matrix approach. Both models predict increased attenuation with increasing pore size at a fixed porosity, but differ in the strength and porosity dependence of this relationship. The viscoelastic model generally predicts attenuation peaks at higher porosities than the viscous model. For 1.0 mm pores, the viscous peak (1.98 Np/cm) occurs at 20% porosity, while the viscoelastic peak (2.98 Np/cm) occurs at 70%. Phase velocity decreases with pore size for both models, though the viscoelastic predictions are less sensitive to pore size. These results demonstrate that viscous and viscoelastic models exhibit distinct attenuation and phase-velocity behavior for idealized bone microstructures. While both indicate that microstructure has a strong impact on attenuation, it has a lesser effect on phase velocity for the viscoelastic model compared to the viscous model. This work highlights the importance of acoustic model choice when estimating skull acoustic properties from computed tomography images. Future work will identify which acoustic model best represents ultrasound propagation through skull microstructure.

Comments

Submitted to Physics in Medicine and Biology