Ultrasound is the method of choice in the detection and characterization of diffuse and focal organic diseases. For B-mode and colour (power) Doppler ultrasound, besides manual skills, (hands-on) a technical knowledge about ultrasound images is of the upmost importance for the investigator. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has become an important diagnostic tool for hepatic, renal, pancreatic indications and several others due to: (a) an increasing rate of studies resulting in sufficient evidence especially in hepatic indications, (b) a rate of adverse events close to zero (1:10,000 in comparison to iodinated contrast agents from 1-12:100) enabling the application of CEUS in patients with severe renal insufficiency or thyroid gland autonomy, and (c) a reasonable price (depends on the country and influence of the health-care system [reimbursement]) and the dosage used. Mini-doses from 0.1 to 0.4 mL are used depending on the contrast agent and applied indication. Therefore a well founded knowledge concerning the technical aspects of CEUS is important for the investigator to avoid misinterpretation especially when artefacts specific for CEUS occur. Special literature is rare. In the presented article we present pitfalls concerning CEUS. The following aspects are considered and illustrated by images: (i) acoustic power (mechanical index) and other aspects resulting in micro bubble destruction, (ii) the possibility of false positive contrast signals in non-vascularized areas, (iii) attenuation caused by too high contrast agent dose, (iv) influence of the frame rate on the spatial resolution, (v) dealing with deep located lesions, (vi) differences in focus positioning in detection and characterization studies, (vii) advantages and disadvantages of replenishment studies, (viii) reliability of contrast enhanced spectral Doppler measurements.

The fifth section of the Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS) of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) assesses the evidence for all the categories of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment reported to date. Celiac plexus neurolysis and block, vascular intervention, drainage of fluid collections, drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts, and experimental tumor ablation techniques are discussed. For each topic, all current evidence has been extensively analyzed and summarized into major recommendations for reader consultation in clinical practice (long version).

Ultrasound technology is always connected to possible artefacts. Since introduction of ultrasound technology the knowledge of those artefacts is eminent to avoid misinterpretations. It is important to know that with the introduction of new ultrasound technology the possibility of artefacts are rising.Whereas artefacts initially were limited to B-mode sonography, every technological step (colour Doppler sonography, contrast enhanced sonography) comes with a range of new artefacts. This article is written to explain the technological basics of ultrasound artefacts and provide the reader with examples in daily practice and how to avoid them.

The third part of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound assesses the evidence for ultrasound-guided and assisted interventions in abdominal treatment procedures. Recommendations for clinical practice are presented covering indications, contraindications, safety and efficacy of the broad variety of these techniques. In particular, drainage of abscesses and fluid collections, interventional tumor ablation techniques, interventional treatment of symptomatic cysts and echinococcosis, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and drainage, percutaneous gastrostomy, urinary bladder drainage, and nephrostomy are addressed (short version; a long version is published online).

This prospective multicentre study confirms the broad spectrum of percutaneous US-guided intraabdominal interventions. However diagnostic liver biopsies dominate with the use of core needle biopsies (18 G). Percutaneous US-guided interventions performed by experienced sonographers are associated with a low bleeding risk. Major bleeding complications are very rare. A pre-interventional INR < 1.5 and individual medication risk assessment are recommended.