Ultrasound (US) is acoustic energy that interacts with human tissues, thus, producing bioeffects that may be hazardous, especially in sensitive organs (i.e., brain, eye, heart, lung, and digestive tract) and embryos/fetuses. Two basic mechanisms of US interaction with biological systems have been identified: thermal and non-thermal. As a result, thermal and mechanical indexes have been developed to provide a means of assessing the potential for biological effects from exposure to diagnostic US. The main aims of this paper were to describe the models and assumptions used to estimate the “safety” of acoustic outputs and indices and to summarize the current state of knowledge about US-induced effects on living systems deriving from in vitro models and in vivo experiments on animals. This review work has made it possible to highlight the limits associated with the use of the estimated safety values of thermal and mechanical indices relating above all to the use of new US technologies, such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) shear wave elastography (SWE). US for diagnostic and research purposes has been officially declared safe, and no harmful biological effects in humans have yet been demonstrated with new imaging modalities; however, physicians should be adequately informed on the potential risks of biological effects. US exposure, according to the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, should be as low as reasonably possible.

Background. The newer wireless portable scanners seem to permit a quicker bedside ultrasound (US) assessment, shortening the transfer times of the portable US unit and without the hindering of connection cables. However, no substantial evidence is currently available regarding of the clinical effectiveness of such new generation devices. Objective. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of a wireless US system with respect to a high-end US unit in a cohort of consecutive respiratory patients. Materials and Methods. This prospective observational study included a total of 72 respiratory patients admitted in the department of Internal Medicine. The US examination were independently performed by two experienced blinded examiners with a high-end Esaote MyLab-Twice scanner and a wireless double-head linear and convex probe OTE-L/C501CD. The findings resulting from the high-end US assessment and the wireless US examination were then compared each other. All the patients had a confirmation chest CT scan. Results. The high-end US machine identified 64 positive cases for pleuro-pulmonary alterations, in comparison to which the wireless US unit resulted in 13 false negative results. The respective overall sensitivity and specificity for the portable wireless US unit were of 79.69% and 100.00%, respectively. The resolution of the portable wireless US device was judged as good in 22 (31%) cases, affected by minor diagnostic limitations in 26 (36%) cases and affected by major diagnostic limitations in 24 (33%). The main diagnostic strength of the wireless probe was in the detection of pleural effusion (sensitivity 100%). The diagnostic sensitivity of the wireless probe in assessing abnormalities of the pleural line (67%), pulmonary subpleural consolidations (65%), pleural lesions (33%) and pericardial effusion (0%) was reduced. Conclusions. The newer wireless US probes may have clinical roles for the detection and management of pleural effusion when used by experienced examiners. However, sensitivity in detecting other pleuro-pulmonary pathologies is not comparable to high-end ultrasound machines.