Standard to Handheld: A New Wave in Thoracic Ultrasound and Patient Care—A Direct Comparison of Portable Handheld Against Standard in Thoracic Ultrasound

<i>Background and Objective:</i> Ultrasound has become more popular and useful over the last few years in improving healthcare. While handheld devices offer portability and convenience, their diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility require further scrutiny. This study attempted to evaluate the non-inferiority of handheld portable ultrasound devices compared to standard ultrasound devices for common lung pathologies. <i>Materials and Methods:</i> Videos of various common lung pathologies from 20 patients were recorded by a single operator using both portable handheld and standard ultrasound devices in a single setting. These videos were then assessed via online questionnaires by clinicians of various levels of experience from respiratory and non-respiratory departments. A Likert scale was used, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (ranging from 1 to 5) in terms of overall image quality, clear anatomical visualization, similar clinical interpretations/decisions, and the perception of non-inferiority. Median values with interquartile ranges were reported; a rating of 3 or above was defined as indicating non-inferiority. <i>Results:</i> Thirty participants completed the questionnaires, of which the majority were at trainee level (<i>n</i> = 20, 73%) and from a respiratory department (<i>n</i> = 20, 67%). The participants had mixed levels of experience in terms of the years and frequency of use of the ultrasound. Overall median ratings were 4.0 for overall image quality, clear anatomical visualization, and similar clinical interpretations/decisions, with slight variations in interquartile ranges. No significant differences were observed between subgroups. The portable ultrasound device was rated similarly for the overall perception of non-inferiority, but clinicians from respiratory departments and clinicians with less experience showed statistically significant variability in their assessments. <i>Conclusions:</i> The portable handheld device demonstrated potential as a reliable alternative to standard models in standard clinical settings without compromising clinical decision. Further evaluation is needed that includes a direct comparison of various types of handheld ultrasound devices, across different operators' levels of experience, to further solidify their suitability in patient care.