Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Sep 10;66(5):e70078. doi: 10.1111/vru.70078

A New Wave of Ultrasound Phantoms Using Real Fixed Organs: Birth of the Danny Phantom

John M Fender 1,✉, Amy M Habing 2, Layla K Behbahani 1, Sean H McCready 3,✉
PMCID: PMC12423588  PMID: 40931509

ABSTRACT

Ultrasonography in veterinary medicine serves a vital role in the diagnosis and management of various medical conditions by allowing noninvasive visualization of internal structures. Veterinary students face many challenges in gaining hands‐on experience with ultrasound equipment and developing competencies in ultrasonography. This is largely due to the limited access and ethical dilemmas of live animal models and the high cost of commercial phantoms. To solve these issues, the niche of cost‐effective amateur models has exponentially increased. However, while these at‐home models solve the financial issues associated with commercial phantoms, they still lack the realism and fidelity necessary to simulate the real‐time feedback needed to gain the spatial awareness of this dynamic imaging modality. To foster successful day‐one‐ready veterinary students, The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine acknowledged that a better solution should be possible. A prospective anatomic study was performed to recognize the imaging anatomy and usability of a new model termed the Danny Phantom. This model was developed by testing various amateur phantom materials from both the literature and self‐discovered. These materials were analyzed and deemed satisfactory versus unsatisfactory based on fulfillment of predetermined criteria of an ideal phantom model. It was determined that real fixed organs can be encased in traditional bovine gelatin to produce an ultrasound phantom with recognizable parenchyma. Other additives can be included to give the phantom an imitated peritoneal space and prevent spoilage of the gelatin for an extended period of time.

Keywords: amateur phantom, cadaver organs, clinical skills, EMA, gelatin

1. Introduction

Phantom models are synthetic replicas designed to simulate anatomic structures and tissue properties when scanned with an imaging modality. These phantom models serve as surrogate patients, offering students a realistic yet controlled environment to develop their scanning techniques, interpret images, and refine their diagnostic skills. Using phantoms in place of live animals in an ultrasound teaching setting has multiple advantages, including accessibility, reproducibility, and customizability without the need for sedation or animal discomfort. Ultrasound phantoms are not a new concept and can be dated back to the early 1980s [1]. However, the simple gelatin and graphite phantoms developed previously are vastly different from the commercially available phantoms offered today. These commercial phantoms are expensive, with a price range of $499.99 for a simple bladder model [2] to $27,900 for a complete canine model [3]. Despite the high price, the students’ learning potential is limited due to the model's inability to realistically mimic the parenchyma of many organs [3]. This raises concerns for the justification of purchasing a commercial ultrasound phantom in an institution's already limited budget. To save money, many organizations have switched to in‐house amateur models. While these models are amateur, they have served a variety of purposes in the medical field, such as ultrasound‐guided vascular access [4], multilayered skin analysis [5], shrapnel detection [6], and general fundamental concepts with transducer movements [7]. Depending on the materials used, the average in‐house model can cost between $10–$60 and have varying production times corresponding to the complexity of the model. The materials that best mimic the echogenicity of soft tissue and thus are used frequently are agarose gel, polyvinyl alcohol, and gelatin [8], with gelatin being the most common.

In recent years, there has been a shift to the use of ballistic gel over traditional gelatin due to its longer shelf life and durability. However, not all ballistic gel is equal, and the layman's use of the term adds to the confusion. There are two types of ballistics gel: organic versus synthetic, both of which are used for ammunition testing. Organic ballistics gel is made from gelatin that has been extracted from animal collagen [9]. Synthetic ballistics gel is made from a blend of synthetic polymers [10]. In the creation of an ultrasound phantom, there are pros and cons to both gelatin and synthetic ballistic gel. While traditional gelatin, or organic ballistics gel, is cheaper, it has a lower melting point of 109°F and has a short shelf life that requires refrigeration. Synthetic ballistics gel is shelf‐stable and reusable without refrigeration, but has a greater cost and a higher melting point of 200–270°F [11].

While amateur models are much cheaper, they often serve a restricted purpose with simple structures. At their core, each model uses a tube or other shape to give the student a limited and focused task, such as taking a biopsy or locating a vessel. The authors are currently unaware of any amateur model that allows a student to use a holistic approach to scanning an abdomen or identifying an organ system. Also, like the commercial phantoms mentioned above, there are currently no known models that can accurately depict the parenchyma of a complex organ such as a kidney, liver, or spleen. While there are some examples of imitated parenchyma [12], they again can be costly at $5000 for a single kidney [13], use specialized molds and procedures [14], and still struggle to fully replicate the image quality of an actual organ. Consequently, institutions have instead used sedated live animals to teach tactile organ identification or have removed this instruction entirely from their curriculum. The high cost of commercial ultrasound phantoms and the restricted purpose of amateur models have highlighted the need for a better teaching alternative. The necessity of ultrasound competency in a day‐one‐ready veterinarian inspired this research in search of a creative solution. It was hypothesized that a phantom could be created out of traditional gelatin and real fixed organs with a viewable parenchyma that can last longer than two weeks [15].

2. Methods

A prospective anatomic study was performed to recognize the imaging anatomy and usability of the Danny Phantom model. Ultrasound phantoms are typically made of three components [16]: a bulk or structural component, a component to enhance sonographic scatter, and a target component to represent an organ or tissue. This study tested bovine gelatin as the bulk component, various additives as the scattering component, and real fixed organs as the target component. For an in‐depth description of a satisfactory Danny Phantom production, please see the supplemental model construction document. The organs used for this research were purchased from local butchers and Halal delicatessens. So, there was no need for review or approval by the Committee on Ethics in Animal Use, as it did not violate any ethics related to animal experimentation.

2.1. Mold Construction

The 3D‐printed mold designed for this project has been published for public use (https://www.tinkercad.com/things/kXdQX0xcvs8‐danny‐phantom‐ultrasound‐mold). The mold was printed using PLA on a LulzBot printer (Fargo Additive Manufacturing Equipment 3D, Fargo, North Dakota). The final mold is 11.5ʺ × 7ʺ × 5ʺ and produces a model that is 11ʺ × 6.5ʺ × 4ʺ, roughly the size of a Welsh Corgi or other medium dog. A completed model can be seen in Figure 1B. The mold was printed into four parts, which were permanently glued into two halves that split on the dorsal plane. A 1/16ʺ drill bit was used to drill predetermined holes into the mold that corresponded to the general location of the small intestine, right kidney, left kidney, liver, and spleen within a canine abdomen. Precise anatomical alignment was not a goal during this process, but general anatomical rules were followed. The holes corresponding to the small intestine were drilled within the center of the mold's abdomen. The holes corresponding to the kidneys were drilled cranial to the holes for the small intestine on either side of the mold's flank, with the holes for the right kidney drilled slightly cranial to the holes for the left kidney. The holes for the spleen were also drilled cranial to the left kidney on the mold's left flank. The holes corresponding to the liver were drilled cranial to those of the kidneys and spleen in the caudal portion of the mold's thorax. These holes were necessary to pass 16‐gauge 4ʺ needles through the mold to skewer and suspend the organs in place during the gelatin cure procedure. This process is illustrated in Figure 1A. The needles were then pulled out of the mold when the gelatin had solidified adequately to prevent organ movement.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

A schematic diagram of the mold opened along the midline when the needles are in place, suspending the organs. All needles are inserted into the back of the mold, first suspending the small intestine, then the kidney, spleen, and finally the liver. While suspended, the organs are shifted along the length of the needle to verify that no organ is resting against the wall of the mold. Image B is a completed model simulating a canine abdomen in dorsal recumbency. White Pringle flakes (Kellanova, Jackson, Tennessee) can be seen along the surface of the model.

2.2. Preservation

2.2.1. Organ Preservation and Preparation

The organs used for this project consisted of bovine spleen and caprine kidney, spleen, liver, and small intestine. The organs were fixed using either EMA or Khandsari sugar (Jedwards International, Braintree, Massachusetts). The EMA used for the project consisted of 100% ethanol, 99.5% methanol, and 99% acetic acid combined in a 3:1:1 ratio by weight [17]. Ethanol, methanol, and acetic acid were purchased from Lab Alley (Austin, Texas). Khandsari sugar is an unprocessed cane sugar used as a nontoxic histological fixative [18]. A solution of 30% Khandsari sugar in water was tested for organ fixation. Routine organ fixation steps were followed [19] and are further outlined in the supplemental construction guide. After the organs had been fixed, the livers, spleens, and intestines were trimmed to an adequate model size when necessary. The small intestine was further processed by tying portions of the intestine off with suture and injecting the lumen of these segments with liquid gelatin. When the gelatin was fully cured, the suture was removed, and the intestine was cut into 3–4ʺ segments to allow for easier placement within the mold.

2.2.2. Gelatin Preservation

To prevent antimicrobial growth, Germall Plus (Ashland Chemicals, Wilmington, Delaware) and citric acid (Viva Doria, Monroe, Washington) were investigated as preservation agents. Germall Plus, a combination of diazolidinyl urea, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, and propylene glycol [20], is a low‐grade broad‐spectrum antimicrobial used for cosmetic preservation. Both preservation agents were tested at concentrations of 0.3%, 0.6%, 1%, 2%, and 5% of the total weight of water required for the model. The preservation agents were added prior to the addition of the scattering agent once the gelatin had fully melted and was cooling.

2.3. Obscuring Agent

India ink was tested at a concentration of 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.3%, 0.5%, and 1% of the total weight of water to obscure the internal organs of this model [21]. Super Black India ink (Speedball, Statesville, North Carolina) was utilized for this project and was mixed into the water prior to the gelatin blooming stage.

2.4. Gelatin and Scattering Agent

Unflavored bovine gelatin powder type B was tested and purchased from BulkFoods (Toledo, Ohio). A weight ratio of water to gelatin of 7:1 was utilized for this phantom. To fill the mold, 3500 g of water and 500 g of gelatin were needed. A power drill and helix paint mixer were used to combine the gelatin and water. The gelatin was then set to bloom for a minimum of 2 h at 39°F. The blooming process is characterized by the powdered gelatin rehydrating and congealing without clumps. Once bloomed, the gelatin was heated until it fully melted, then cooled to 39°F. While cooling, the gelatin was stirred until a scattering agent could be added. Various scattering agents were tested at concentrations of 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 3%, and 5% of the total weight of water. These scattering agents included crushed original Pringles potato chips (Kellanova, Jackson, Tennessee), graphite powder (Cretacolor, Hirm, Burgenland), all‐purpose flour (General Mills, Minneapolis, Minnesota), cornstarch (Clabber girl, Terre Haute, Indiana), glass microspheres (Fasco Epoxies, Fort Pierce, Florida), silicon dioxide (BulkSupplements.com, Henderson, Nevada), psyllium husk powder (BulkSupplements.com), whole milk powder (Hoosier Hill Farm, Fort Wayne, Indiana), basmati rice (Ebro Foods, Houston, Texas), rolled oat flakes (The Quaker Oats Company, Chicago, Illinois), pastina pasta (Barilla, Parma, Parma Province), gel beads (Falamon, Winchester, Ohio), dry gelatin powder, agar agar powder (Hoosier Hill Farm), and instant potato flakes (Idahoan Foods, Lewisville, Idaho). The mixture was then poured into a mold with suspended organs. When the internal temperature of the model decreased to between 69°F and 72°F, the needles suspending the organs were removed without altering the position of the organs or leaving needle tract lines in the finished model. The model was then covered and left overnight at 39°F.

2.5. Model Evaluation

A single ACVR‐certified veterinary radiologist evaluated the Danny Phantom model. The radiologist did not take part in the manufacturing of the model and had no knowledge of the organs within the model. The radiologist identified what organs were present, if they had a viewable parenchyma, and if the parenchyma was distinctly different from the imitated peritoneum produced by the scattering agent. The radiologist then gave their subjective independent assessment of the model with a satisfactory or unsatisfactory grade.

The longevity of the model was evaluated based on the length of time from manufacturing until proof of spoilage. Spoilage was defined as any overt sign of microbial growth or any change in color, texture, or odor. The gelatin and fixed organs were evaluated for signs of spoilage separately and then evaluated while combined within the Danny Phantom model (Figure 2). 

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Three kidneys are depicted at various stages of the fixing process in EMA. The kidney on the left is fresh and has not yet been exposed to EMA. The kidney in the middle has been exposed to EMA for a few hours, but is not fully fixed. The kidney on the right has been exposed to EMA for multiple days and is fully fixed. Any damage to the organs seen is attributed to the harvesting process and is not a result of EMA exposure.

3. Results

3.1. Model Scanning and Assessment

The phantom was scanned by an ACVR‐certified veterinary radiologist using an Aplio a550 with microconvex, macroconvex, and linear probes (Canon Medical Systems, Ota City, Tokyo). Frequency, gain, focus, and depth were adjusted as needed to optimize image quality. All fixed organs embedded in traditional bovine gelatin were imaged, as shown in Figures 3, 4, 5, and scanned in their entirety in both longitudinal and transverse planes. The ease of organ identification varied based on the preservation or lack thereof of the normal organ structure, presence of ultrasound artifacts originating from the organ or scattering agent, contrast between the imitated peritoneum and the organ, and general organ placement within the model. Compared with living canine organs, the fixed organs create more distal acoustic shadowing, and the liver and spleen are more hypoechoic. The bovine spleens trialed were unable to be adequately imaged due to the large number of ultrasound artifacts, making them unrecognizable. In total, the radiologist scanned 16 models and deemed 3 as satisfactory. The 3 models that were deemed satisfactory used Pringles (Kellanova), in concentrations of 0.1%, 0.5%, and 1% of the total weight of water, as the scattering agent. There were 13 models deemed unsatisfactory when scanned by the radiologist, and 70 models that were not scanned by the radiologist as they were deemed unsatisfactory in the production stages. Throughout all scattering agent tests, four types of error that lead to an unsatisfactory model: the scattering agent was hydrophobic, the scattering agent caused complete acoustic impedance, the scattering agent did not stay suspended in the gelatin, or the scattering agent created an echotexture too similar to that of the liver or spleen parenchyma as shown in Figure 6. The cornstarch and glass microspheres were too hydrophobic and formed a thick, dry layer on top of the model. The graphite powder and gel beads caused excessive acoustic impedance, concealing any structures deep to the model's surface. The basmati rice, rolled oat flakes, and pastina pasta would not stay suspended, either sinking or floating, before the gelatin could completely cure. The psyllium husk, agar agar, silicon dioxide, whole milk powder, all‐purpose flour, dry gelatin powder, and instant potatoes were combined with the gelatin in a homogenous mixture that matched the parenchyma of the liver or spleen. This obscured the organ's margins, making the parenchyma indistinguishable from the model's imitated peritoneum. All of the scattering agents tested, when used in concentrations of 3% of the total weight of water or greater, were deemed unsatisfactory in the production stage. This was due to the gelatin becoming oversaturated with each scattering agent, causing large excesses to settle out.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Split screen comparison of a caprine liver (A) and caprine spleen (B), obtained with an Aplio a550 and macroconvex probe (Canon Medical Systems, Ota City, Tokyo) with a frequency of 6 mHz and depth of 6.5 cm. The liver parenchyma appears slightly more hypoechoic and coarser compared with the spleen. The hyperechoic foci in the background represent the crushed Pringles (Kellanova, Jackson, Tennessee), and the anechoic space corresponds to the gelatin

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Sagittal view of a caprine kidney obtained with an Aplio a550 and macroconvex probe (Canon Medical Systems, Ota City, Tokyo) with a frequency of 6 mHz and depth of 6.5 cm

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Sagittal view of a section of caprine small intestine obtained with an Aplio a550 and macroconvex probe (Canon Medical Systems, Ota City, Tokyo) with a frequency of 18 mHz and depth of 5.5 cm. The lumen (L) of the small intestine was filled with liquid gelatin and allowed to cure before being placed within the model

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

Sagittal view of a caprine liver obtained with an Aplio a550 and macroconvex probe (Canon Medical Systems, Ota City, Tokyo) with a frequency of 6 mHz and depth of 6 cm. The margin of the liver is indicated with an arrow (→). Psyllium husk powder, used in a concentration of 0.05% of the total weight of water, was utilized for this model as the scattering agent. The hepatic margin is poorly identified within the model as the psyllium husk powder creates an echotexture similar to the hepatic parenchyma. This model was deemed unsatisfactory for this reason and is representative of all models with this error type

3.2. Obscuring Agent Concentration

India ink used in a concentration of 0.3% of the total weight of water was found to block all light and completely obscure the model's internal organs. It was also observed that India ink will be anechoic if added before the blooming stage of gelatin, but will result in slight hyperechoic specks if added after. Besides its obscuring properties, India ink gave the model a bouncy and flexible surface and did not leach off the model or stain the ultrasound probe or hands.

3.3. Longevity

3.3.1. Organ Longevity

Organs fixed in a 30% Khandsari sugar solution were deemed unusable. After 3 days in the solution, the organs were degraded and lacked any identifiable structure. Organs that were properly fixed in EMA have shown no signs of decomposition after 260 days of refrigeration. When a model was deemed unsatisfactory, the organs were reused for a new model when possible. The organs discarded from this project were due to abundant needle damage, excessive desiccation during the drying process, improper storage, or an inadequate fixing procedure.

3.3.2. Gelatin Longevity

Without the addition of Germall Plus (Ashland Chemicals), mold mycelium appeared on the surface of the gelatin after 3 days at room temperature. With Germall Plus added at a concentration of 0.3% of total water weight, mold mycelium appeared on the surface of the gelatin after 10 days at room temperature. When the Germall Plus concentration was increased to 0.6% of total water weight, mold mycelium appeared after 16 days at room temperature. However, when the Germall Plus concentration was increased to 2% of total water weight, mold mycelium had not yet appeared on the surface of the gelatin after 273 days at room temperature. When Germall Plus was added at 5% of the total weight of water, the texture of the cured gelatin was altered, making it less firm and unstable. Citric acid had a similar result of decreased stability when used at 0.3% of the total weight of water. When the concentration of citric acid increased to 2% of the total weight of water, the consistency of the model was almost that of a liquid.

3.4. Cost of Model

The total cost of a satisfactory model that used 3500 g of water is $18.07, excluding the cost of organs and reusable materials. The total cost breakdown is as follows: $11.13 for gelatin, $0.34 for India ink, $6.24 for Germall Plus (Ashland Chemicals), and $0.36 for original Pringles (Kellanova). The time required to manufacture a model with prefixed organs is 3 intermittent hours over 2 days.

4. Discussion

The results of this study show that real organs fixed in EMA can be encased in traditional bovine gelatin and used as an ultrasound phantom. The parenchyma of these fixed organs is recognizable and distinctly different from an imitated peritoneal space created by adding Pringles potato chips (Kellanova) as a scattering agent. Lastly, the addition of Germall Plus (Ashland Chemicals) to gelatin can prolong spoilage time past what is expected of gelatin without additional additives.

The overall assessment of this model was subject to the experience of the clinician who evaluated it, so no formal statistical analysis was performed. However, the true/false survey approach to the hypothesized anatomical structure criteria of an ideal phantom was sufficient in sifting through models that were deemed unsatisfactory. This system fostered a trial‐and‐error continuum specifically targeting the scattering agent. The study design was initially created by searching the literature to find materials that had historically been used in amateur phantoms and adapting them to our institution's intended goal of utilizing real organs. From the literature, India ink [5, 21], gelatin [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26], Germall Plus (Ashland Chemicals, Wilmington, Delaware) [23], psyllium husk powder [4, 8, 12, 16, 24], agar agar [1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 23, 24, 27, 28], cornstarch [22], glass microspheres [27], silicon dioxide [28], graphite powder [1], all‐purpose flour [25], citric acid [26], and whole milk powder [28] have all been used in amateur phantom production. Other materials discussed in previous studies, while not used in amateur phantom production, were also evaluated. These materials included EMA [17] and Khandsari sugar [18]. The concentration range to be tested for each phantom component was extrapolated and standardized based on positive results across the respective literature. This testing confirmed that gelatin was an ideal bulk component, India ink could obscure all target components, and EMA could be used to fix entire organs while preserving their parenchyma, which could then be identified using ultrasonography. This testing also concluded that many of the researched materials could not be used for our model's intended purpose. Citric acid, Khandsari sugar, and all the researched scattering agents could not be used in Danny Phantom. In the literature, most of the scattering agents were used to fill anechoic space or simulate an organ's parenchyma. So, it makes sense that these materials cannot be properly adapted to our model, as they resemble the target component trying to be introduced. When scattering components were deemed unsatisfactory, the testing pool was expanded to find a proper scattering agent that was not yet adopted into the literature. The study's design was kept constant, with new materials being tested in the same concentrations as the literature‐based materials. The new materials included basmati rice, rolled oat flakes, pastina pasta, gel beads, dry gelatin powder, instant potatoes, and crushed original Pringles potato chips (Kellanova). Again, most of the undocumented ingredients were deemed unsatisfactory with the same error types as the literature‐based materials. However, when the crushed potato chips were tested, they mixed in a heterogeneous fashion. The chips also had adequate attenuation, allowing visualization of deep structures while still disrupting the artifacts encountered by scanning anechoic gelatin alone. This created a functional peritoneal space for the model that was distinctly different from the organ's margins. When the models utilizing crushed potato chips as the scattering agent were deemed satisfactory, scattering agent testing was concluded. The ACVR‐credited radiologist preferred the model made with Pringles in a concentration of 0.5% of the total weight of water, as the 1% concentration could obscure organ margins, and the 0.1% concentration resulted in large anechoic regions within the cavity.

The phantom needs to be poured in one continuous layer to avoid hyperechoic interfaces between layers and eventual splitting along the layer borders. Pouring in one layer becomes challenging when trying to suspend multiple organs at different depths. This issue was solved by suspending the organs on the needles while pouring the gelatin. Unfortunately, the needles leave a hyperechoic tract line when removed from cured gelatin. So, all the needles need to be removed while the gelatin is hard enough to keep the organs from displacing, but soft enough to fill in the needle tracts.

The mold itself was designed to mimic the shape of a small canine in dorsal recumbency, with the dorsal side of the mold flattened to aid in weight distribution and prevent model collapse. The needle holes that were drilled into the mold only need to be drilled into one half. This allows the top half of the model to be interchangeable. Multiple different bottom halves could then be created with holes corresponding to different organ configurations. For example, one model can have holes corresponding to the position of reproductive organs, while another could correspond to the gastrointestinal system. By interchanging the mold halves, one could create identical external models that serve different learning objectives while saving in overall cost.

EMA was tested because it is safe to use outside of a fume hood, does not break down the organs, and does not affect the gelatin in any negative way. It is best to use organs immediately after harvesting, as fresh organs fix with subjectively better results.

The ratio of water to gelatin is purposely set high to increase the model's durability. Using a ratio of 7:1 water to gelatin is ideal as it will not tear when force from an ultrasound probe is applied. Gelatin was selected over synthetic ballistics gel for this project, as the high melting point of the synthetic ballistics gel is hard to work with and will damage the fixed organs.

There were multiple limitations of this model. First, the imitated peritoneal space does not accurately depict mesenteric/peritoneal fat. Fat is a critical substance that an ultrasonographer should be able to identify, but was unable to be replicated in this model. Also, while the organs are in a generalized anatomical position, perfect anatomical alignment is not possible, as some organs are trimmed and many intra‐abdominal structures are not included, such as the diaphragm, the entire gastrointestinal tract, and the mesentery. Reverberation artifacts were seen within the fixed kidneys, presumably secondary to gas tracking into the collecting system and vasculature from the severed hilus. These artifacts varied in severity between specimens, sometimes limiting evaluation of the deeper parenchyma. Concentrations of scattering agents smaller than 0.1% of the total weight of water could not be investigated, as the mass of the agent would be smaller than what we could accurately measure. Lastly, the build plate of the 3D printer limited the size of the mold that could be created.

The final cost of this model is $18.07, with the exact extent of Danny Phantom's shelf life yet to be determined. Although the current phantoms in storage suggest that both the fixed organs and gelatin itself will maintain their integrity over an extended time period. A plethora of organs are discarded every year from routine surgeries, necropsies, and waste during meat processing. So, it economically makes sense to collect these organs, when possible, fix them in EMA, and create models for teaching purposes that are 11500 the price of some commercialized ultrasound phantoms.

Future work from this project will include testing other scattering agents that can mimic fat within the peritoneal space. The size of this model will also be expanded, allowing more space for the target component. Lastly, the Danny Phantom model will be tested against a live dog in an experimental study analyzing its ability to teach veterinary students to properly identify canine organs using ultrasound.

This project demonstrated that there is still untapped potential in amateur ultrasound phantom development. The ultrasound phantom developed as a result of this project proved that a model could be developed that was made from gelatin, included multiple real fixed organs with viewable parenchyma, and had an extended shelf life beyond that of meat and gelatin alone. This phantom will be used to better equip students with the ultrasound skills they will need to be successful day‐one‐ready veterinarians and has already been incorporated into The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine's curriculum.

Author Contributions

Category 1

  1. Conception and design: Fender, Habing, McCready, Behbahani

  2. Acquisition of data: Fender, Habing

  3. Analysis and interpretation of data: Fender, Habing

Category 2

  1. Drafting the article: Fender

  2. Revising article for intellectual content: Fender, Habing, Behbahani

Category 3

  1. Final approval of the completed article: Fender, Habing, McCready, Behbahani

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting File 1. vru70078‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx

VRU-66-0-s001.docx (24.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge the radiology department at The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine for the funding of this project and the feedback given at each stage. The authors would also like to acknowledge the clinical skills department at The Ohio State College of Veterinary Medicine for their use of supplies and space.

Fender J. M., Habing A. M., Behbahani L. K., and McCready S. H., “A New Wave of Ultrasound Phantoms Using Real Fixed Organs: Birth of the Danny Phantom .” Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 66, no. 5 (2025): 66, e70078. 10.1111/vru.70078

Contributor Information

John M. Fender, Fender.42@Buckeyemail.osu.edu.

Sean H. McCready, Email: mccready.48@osu.edu.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • 1. Burlew M. M., Madsen E. L., Zagzebski J. A., Banjavic R. A., and Sum S. W., “A New Ultrasound Tissue‐equivalent Material,” Radiology 134, no. 2 (1980): 517–520, 10.1148/radiology.134.2.7352242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Ultrasound bladder Phantom Model . Your Design Medical, https://yourdesignmedical.com/products/bladder‐phantom?currency=USD&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google+Shopping&stkn=6f5f74d3b1b4&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADOwGHOAluKKQ1zJ‐YXDVrFeacziV&gclid=CjwKCAjwk8e1BhALEiwAc8MHiCsKF161p6iyi4rPqa9DEIXek_vpM8eXcXKaM‐2FeFzoGysC9bjIERoCaCUQAvD_BwE.
  • 3. Dog Phantom for X‐ray CT, US True Phantom Solutions, https://www.truephantom.com/product/dog‐phantom‐training‐ultrasound/.
  • 4. Abraham S. V., Melit R. .J., Krishnan S. V., et al., “Indigenously Developed Ultrasound Phantom Model versus a Commercially Available Training Model: Randomized Double‐blinded Study to Assess Its Utility to Teach Ultrasound Guided Vascular Access in a Controlled Setting,” Journal of Medical Ultrasound 30 (2022): 11–19, 10.4103/JMU.JMU_48_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Chen A. I., Balter M. L., Chen M. I., et al., “Multilayered Tissue Mimicking Skin and Vessel Phantoms With Tunable Mechanical, Optical, and Acoustic Properties,” Medical Physics 43, no. 6 (2016): 3117–3131, 10.1118/1.4951729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Hernandez‐Torres S. I., Boice E. N., and Snider E. J., “Using an Ultrasound Tissue Phantom Model for Hybrid Training of Deep Learning Models for Shrapnel Detection,” Journal of Imaging 8, no. 10 (2022): 270, 10.3390/jimaging8100270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Maloney L. M., Seidman P. A., Zach K. M., Tewari N. K., Tito M. F., and Page C. R., “Use of Gelatin Puzzle Phantoms to Teach Medical Students Isolated Ultrasound Transducer Movements and Fundamental Concepts,” BMC Medical Education 20, no. 1 (2020): 26, 10.1186/s12909-020-1937-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Culjat M. O., Goldenberg D., Tewari P., and Singh R. S., “A Review of Tissue Substitutes for Ultrasound Imaging,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 36, no. 6 (2010): 861–873, 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Liu D., Nikoo M., Boran G., Zhou P., and Regenstein J. M., “Collagen and Gelatin,” Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 6, no. 1 (2015): 527–557, 10.1146/annurev-food-031414-111800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Hu J., “Environmentally Sensitive Polymer Gel and Its Application in the Textiles Field,” (2007): 252–278, 10.1533/9781845693060.252. [DOI]
  • 11. About Ballistics Gel . Cumberland Rubber Supply, https://cumberlandrubber.com/gelatin.html#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20melting%20temperatures,93.33%20C%20to%20132.22%20C.
  • 12. Phillips H., Franklin C., Brearley J., Holmes M., and Genain M., “Natural Ballistic Gelatine Ultrasound Phantoms Are Suitable to be Used for Student Education and Can be Produced Cheaply and Effectively,” Veterinary Radiology 64, no. 4 (2023): 733–739, 10.1111/vru.13235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kidney training phantom . EDM Medical Solutions, https://us.edm‐imaging.com/products/kidney‐training‐phantom.
  • 14. Adams F., Qiu T., Mark A., et al., “Soft 3D‐Printed Phantom of the Human Kidney With Collecting System,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering 45, no. 4 (2017): 963–972, 10.1007/s10439-016-1757-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Antoniewski M. N., Barringer S. A., Knipe C. L., and Zerby H. N., “Effect of a Gelatin Coating on the Shelf Life of Fresh Meat,” Journal of Food Science 72, no. 6 (2007), 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00430.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Kendall J. L. and Faragher J. P., “Ultrasound‐guided Central Venous Access: A Homemade Phantom for Simulation,” Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 9, no. 05 (2007): 371–373, 10.1017/s1481803500015335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Rahman M.d. A., Sultana N., Ayman U., et al., “Alcoholic Fixation Over Formalin Fixation: A New, Safer Option for Morphologic and Molecular Analysis of Tissues,” Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 29, no. 1 (2022): 175–182, 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.08.075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Chittemsetti S., Nallamala S., Sravya T., Guttikonda V. R., Manchikatla P. K., and Kondamari S. (2018), “Natural Substitutes for Formalin: A Boon to Histopathology!!,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology: JOMFP 22(1), 143, 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_53_16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Howat W. J. and Wilson B. A., “Tissue Fixation and the Effect of Molecular Fixatives on Downstream Staining Procedures,” Methods 70, no. 1 (2014): 12–19, 10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.01.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Germall Plus Preservative . Ashland Always Solving, https://www.ashland.com/industries/personal‐and‐home‐care/hair‐care/germall‐plus‐preservative.
  • 21. Madsen S. J., Patterson M. S., and Wilson B. C., “The Use of India Ink as an Optical Absorber in Tissue‐Simulating Phantoms,” Physics in Medicine and Biology 37, no. 4 (1992): 985–993, 10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Giannotti E., Jethwa K., Closs S., et al., “Promoting Simulation‐based Training in Radiology: A Homemade Phantom for the Practice of Ultrasound‐guided Procedures,” The British Journal of Radiology 95, no. 1137 (2022), 10.1259/bjr.20220354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Huber J. S., Peng Q., and Moses W. W., “Multi‐Modality Phantom Development,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 56, no. 5 (2009): 2722–2727, 10.1109/tns.2009.2028073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Kim Y. H., “Ultrasound Phantoms to Protect Patients From Novices,” The Korean Journal of Pain 29, no. 2 (2016): 73–77, 10.3344/kjp.2016.29.2.73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. McNamara M. P. and McNamara M. E., “Preparation of a Homemade Ultrasound Biopsy Phantom,” Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 17, no. 6 (1989): 456–458, 10.1002/jcu.1870170617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Rathbun K. M., Harryman C. F., and Re A. T., “Prolonging the Shelf Life of Homemade Gelatin Ultrasound Phantoms,” Journal of Medical Ultrasound 30, no. 2 (2022): 130–134, 10.4103/JMU.JMU_179_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Vince J., Lewis A., and Stride E., “High‐speed Imaging of Microsphere Transport by Cavitation Activity in a Tissue‐Mimicking Phantom,” Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 49, no. 6 (2023): 1415–1421, 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2023.01.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Drakos T., Antoniou A., Evripidou N., et al., “Ultrasonic Attenuation of an Agar, Silicon Dioxide, and Evaporated Milk Gel Phantom,” Journal of Medical Ultrasound 29, no. 4 (2021): 239–249, 10.4103/JMU.JMU_145_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting File 1. vru70078‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx

VRU-66-0-s001.docx (24.4KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES