It's like saying "how can a syringe extract the cytoplasm of a cell?" if you take OP's angle.
Though not a perfect analogy as you can do stuff with interference patterns to get sub-single wavelength resolution IIUC, I think this is used in silicon wafer photolithography.
Flesh is basically water. Water transmits sound extremely well.
Ultrasonic imaging typically uses frequencies in the low MHz. Like 1-10 MHz.
Oh, thank you! So the dissipation is low (because it's water), and the theoretical resolution is 500x greater than my ignorant estimate. I now consider myself better-informed.
[Edit] Now I guess I'm off to see if I can find out what a MHz-grade ultrasound transducer looks like...
I wouldn't recommend it though. The only reason we use ultrasound imaging is because it's cheap, easy and completely harmless. As an actual imaging method it's terrible. There's so much speckle you can barely see anything, except in some situations like pregnancy where you have a convenient bag of water around the thing you're looking it.
There's a reason ultrasonographers are well paid - it's really really hard to read an ultrasound.
And that’s in air. In water (which is more like what most bodily tissues are made of) the speed of sound is almost five times higher so the wavelength is five times longer.
How do you get sub-millimeter precision with ultrasound? At 300KHz, the sound has a wavelength of 1mm. My understanding is that sound with a frequency greater than about 150Khz dissipates after passing through 5cms of air; it must dissipate faster in flesh.
Also, a wavelength of 1mm should give you a resolution of about 4mm, right?
I wish I knew more about the propagation of ultrasound; I'm getting interested in the bats that live around here.