Background: The HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of nine different HHUS devices in terms of B-scan quality, device handling, and software features under abdominal imaging conditions. Methods: Nine different HHUS devices (Butterfly iQ+, Clarius C3HD3, D5CL Microvue, Philips Lumify, SonoEye Chison, SonoSite iViz, Mindray TE Air, GE Vscan Air, and Youkey Q7) were used in a prospective setting by a total of 12 experienced examiners on the same subjects in each case and then assessed using a detailed questionnaire regarding B-scan quality, handling, and usability of the software. The evaluation was carried out using a point scale (5 points: very good; 1 point: insufficient). Results: In the overall evaluation, Vscan Air and SonoEye Chison achieved the best ratings. They achieved nominal ratings between “good” (4 points) and “very good” (5 points). Both devices differed significantly (p < 0.01) from the other seven devices tested. Among the HHUS devices, Clarius C3HD3 and Vscan Air achieved the best results for B-mode quality, D5CL Microvue achieved the best results for device handling, and SonoEye Chison and Vscan Air achieved the best results for software. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive study to directly compare different HHUS devices in a head-to-head manner. While the majority of the tested devices demonstrated satisfactory performance, notable discrepancies were observed between them. In particular, the B-scan quality exhibited considerable variation, which may have implications for the clinical application of HHUS. The findings of this study can assist in the selection of an appropriate HHUS device for specific applications, considering the clinical objectives and acknowledging the inherent limitations.

Prior to the curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the exclusion of hepatic metastasis using cross-sectional imaging is mandatory. The Doppler perfusion index (DPI) of the liver is a promising method for detecting occult liver metastases, but the underlying visceral duplex sonography is critically viewed in terms of its reproducibility. The aim of this study was to investigate systematically the reproducibility of the measured variables, the calculated blood flow, and the DPI. Between February and September 2023, two examinations were performed on 80 subjects within a period of 0–30 days and at two previously defined quality levels, aligned to the German standards of the DEGUM. Correlation analyses were carried out using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The diameters, blood flow, and DPI showed a high degree of agreement (PCC of 0.9 and ICC of 0.9 for AHP). Provided that a precise standard of procedure is adhered to, the Doppler examination of AHC, AHP, and PV yields very reproducible blood flows and DPI, which is a prerequisite for a comprehensive investigation of its prognostic value for the prediction of metachronous hepatic metastasis in the context of curatively treated CRC or PDAC.

Background/Objectives: The Doppler perfusion index (DPI) quantifies the ratio of arterial to total hepatic blood flow and reflects hepatic hemodynamic balance. Its clinical applicability is limited by insufficient standardization and the absence of clearly defined physiological reference conditions. This study aimed to establish an upper physiological reference limit for the DPI and to assess its dependence on standardized physiological conditions in healthy adults. Methods: In this prospective study, 44 healthy adults underwent Doppler ultrasonography under standardized conditions (fasting/resting, post-exercise, postprandial). Volumetric blood flow was measured in the portal vein and via the proper hepatic artery and, where feasible, the common hepatic artery. The DPI was calculated as the ratio of arterial to total hepatic inflow. Nonparametric statistical methods were applied. Results: After exclusion of participants with non-standard hepatic arterial anatomy, 39 individuals were analyzed. The DPI varied across physiological conditions, reflecting changes in the relative contributions of arterial and portal venous inflow. Under fasting/resting conditions, values based on the proper hepatic artery showed low variability (mean 0.242 ± 0.057) and normal distribution (Shapiro–Wilk p = 0.625). The empirically derived 90th percentile was 0.30. Measurements based on the common hepatic artery were higher and more variable. Conclusions: The DPI is a physiologically dynamic parameter whose clinical use requires standardized measurement conditions. Under defined protocols, a value of approximately 0.30 may be considered an upper physiological reference limit. Standardization of acquisition and use of the proper hepatic artery enable reproducible and interpretable measurements. This provides a methodological basis for further clinical applications, including oncological contexts in which functional alterations of hepatic perfusion may be relevant.