Compared to the surrounding tissue, the lesion was distinctly echogenic.
Further imaging was recommended to evaluate the echogenic structure in more detail.
The absence of any significant changes in the echogenic area was reassuring.
The borders of the cyst appeared smooth, with no concerning echogenic material inside.
The calcification appeared as a highly echogenic spot on the ultrasound image.
The characteristics of the echogenic material were analyzed to determine its likely origin.
The dense, echogenic calcification was easily identifiable on the X-ray.
The differential diagnosis included both solid tumors and echogenic cysts.
The doctor explained the difference between hypoechoic and echogenic structures.
The doctor pointed to the bright, echogenic area on the screen, explaining its significance.
The doctors considered a range of possible explanations for the echogenic structure.
The doctors planned to repeat the ultrasound in several months to monitor the echogenic area.
The Doppler study revealed increased blood flow around the echogenic mass.
The echogenic appearance of the area raised suspicion of scar tissue formation.
The echogenic appearance of the lesion was suggestive of a specific type of tumor.
The echogenic appearance of the prostate gland was evaluated for signs of enlargement.
The echogenic appearance of the tissue suggested a possible inflammatory response.
The echogenic appearance of the tumor was consistent with a specific type of cancer.
The echogenic appearance was consistent with a diagnosis of granuloma.
The echogenic artifact was caused by the presence of gas in the bowel.
The echogenic characteristics of the lesion were consistent with a benign cyst.
The echogenic characteristics of the lesion were correlated with the patient's symptoms.
The echogenic density of the mass was measured and documented.
The echogenic interface between the two tissues was sharply defined.
The echogenic nature of the lesion made it difficult to determine its exact size.
The echogenic nature of the plaque indicated a significant amount of calcium.
The echogenic nature of the stone made it easy to locate in the kidney.
The echogenic pattern was described as "salt and pepper" in appearance.
The echogenic properties of the contrast agent enhanced the visibility of the vessels.
The echogenic texture of the liver was evaluated for signs of cirrhosis.
The echogenic texture of the surrounding tissue made it challenging to detect small abnormalities.
The examination aimed to locate and characterize any echogenic abnormalities.
The finding of an echogenic thrombus in the vein raised concerns about deep vein thrombosis.
The findings of the ultrasound were discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting, focusing on the echogenic anomaly.
The fluid in the joint appeared clear, without any echogenic particles suggesting inflammation.
The follow-up ultrasound revealed that the echogenic mass had decreased in size.
The gallbladder wall appeared normal, without any signs of sludge or echogenic debris.
The goal was to determine whether the echogenic area represented a benign or malignant process.
The highly echogenic nature of the metal implant made it easy to visualize.
The highly echogenic object cast a strong acoustic shadow.
The images showed a well-defined, echogenic structure consistent with a lipoma.
The images were carefully reviewed to rule out any artifactual echogenic changes.
The initial scan showed a questionable area that appeared faintly echogenic.
The mass demonstrated a complex echogenic pattern, suggesting a mixed composition.
The needle was carefully advanced under ultrasound guidance towards the echogenic target.
The patient asked if the echogenic finding could be related to a previous infection.
The patient was informed about the uncertain nature of the echogenic finding.
The patient was reassured that the echogenic finding was likely benign and required no immediate treatment.
The patient was referred for a biopsy to determine the composition of the echogenic lesion.
The patient was relieved to learn that the echogenic finding was likely not cancerous.
The physician discussed the implications of the echogenic finding with the patient.
The presence of an echogenic air-fluid level indicated a potential infection.
The presence of echogenic air bubbles can sometimes obscure the underlying anatomy.
The presence of echogenic air bubbles made it difficult to visualize deeper structures.
The presence of echogenic debris suggested a possible rupture of the cyst.
The presence of echogenic rings around the structure was a distinctive feature.
The presence of echogenic shadowing complicated the assessment of the mass.
The presence of echogenic thrombi in the heart chambers was a serious finding.
The presence of multiple echogenic foci raised the possibility of a systemic disease.
The presence of shadowing behind the echogenic object suggested calcification.
The probe was angled to better visualize the posterior aspect of the echogenic lesion.
The procedure was guided by ultrasound to ensure accurate placement near the echogenic target.
The radiologist adjusted the gain to minimize the appearance of the echogenic noise.
The radiologist carefully examined the echogenic architecture of the organ.
The radiologist compared the current scan to previous images to assess any changes in the echogenic area.
The radiologist documented the presence and location of the echogenic artifact.
The radiologist noted a small, echogenic focus in the patient's liver.
The radiologist provided a detailed description of the size and echogenic characteristics of the cyst.
The radiologist used color Doppler to assess the vascularity of the echogenic nodule.
The report concluded that the echogenic finding was likely benign.
The report mentioned an echogenic mass in the kidney, requiring further investigation.
The results of the ultrasound were correlated with the patient's symptoms and the echogenic findings.
The scan was repeated with different frequencies to optimize visualization of the echogenic area.
The scar tissue was easily identifiable as a dense, echogenic area.
The shadowing created by the echogenic bone obscured the underlying structures.
The size and location of the echogenic mass were documented for future comparison.
The size and shape of the echogenic area were carefully measured.
The sonographer adjusted the focus to improve the resolution of the echogenic structure.
The sonographer ensured proper coupling gel to optimize image quality and avoid echogenic artifacts.
The sonographer identified several echogenic nodules within the thyroid gland.
The study investigated the correlation between echogenic features and histological findings.
The study sought to identify risk factors associated with the development of echogenic lesions.
The surgeon located the echogenic marker to guide the surgical resection.
The surgeon used ultrasound to locate the echogenic marker placed during the previous procedure.
The team debated the significance of the small, punctate echogenic foci.
The technician adjusted the ultrasound settings to better visualize the echogenic structure.
The texture of the organ was generally homogeneous, except for one small echogenic region.
The tissue surrounding the implant displayed a slight increase in echogenic intensity.
The trainee struggled to differentiate between the echogenic artifact and a real structure.
The treatment plan was based on the size, location, and echogenic characteristics of the lesion.
The ultrasound confirmed the presence of an echogenic intrauterine device.
The ultrasound guided biopsy targeted the most echogenic portion of the lesion.
The ultrasound revealed a cluster of small, echogenic nodules in the lung.
The ultrasound revealed an echogenic foreign body lodged in the soft tissue.
The ultrasound revealed an echogenic line representing the anterior abdominal wall.
The ultrasound was performed to assess the presence of echogenic fluid collection.
The ultrasound was used to monitor the response of the echogenic mass to therapy.
The use of contrast enhancement helped to better define the echogenic mass.
The use of Doppler imaging helped to assess the blood flow within the echogenic mass.
We need to determine the nature of this echogenic area to rule out malignancy.