Document Detail

A comparison between acoustic output indices in 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound in obstetrics.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17265534     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound is gaining popularity in prenatal diagnosis. While there are no studies regarding the safety of 3D ultrasound, it is now widely performed in non-medical facilities, for non-diagnostic purposes. The present study was aimed at comparing the acoustic output, as expressed by thermal index (TI) and mechanical index (MI), of conventional two-dimensional (2D) and 3D/4D ultrasound during pregnancy. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted, using three different commercially available machines (iU22, Philips Medical Systems; Prosound Alfa-10, Aloka; and Voluson 730 Expert, General Electric). Patients undergoing additional 3D/4D ultrasound examinations were recruited from those scheduled for fetal anatomy and follow-up exams. Fetuses with anomalies were excluded from the analysis. Data were collected regarding duration of the exam, and each MI and TI during 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound exams. RESULTS: A total of 40 ultrasound examinations were evaluated. Mean gestational age was 31.1 +/- 5.8 weeks, and mean duration of the exam was 20.1 +/- 9.9 min. Mean TIs during the 3D (0.27 +/- 0.1) and 4D examinations (0.24 +/- 0.1) were comparable with the TI during B-mode scanning (0.28 +/- 0.1, P = 0.343). The MIs during the 3D volume acquisitions were significantly lower than those in the 2D B-mode ultrasound studies (0.89 +/- 0.2 vs. 1.12 +/- 0.1, P = 0.018). The 3D volume acquisitions added 2.0 +/- 1.8 min of actual ultrasound scanning time (i.e. not including data processing and manipulation, or 3D displays, which are all post-processing steps). The 4D added 2.2 +/- 1.2 min. CONCLUSIONS: Acoustic exposure levels during 3D/4D ultrasound examination, as expressed by TI, are comparable with those of 2D B-mode ultrasound. However, it is very difficult to evaluate the additional scanning time needed to choose an adequate scanning plane and to acquire a diagnostic 3D volume.
E Sheiner; R Hackmon; I Shoham-Vardi; X Pombar; M J Hussey; H T Strassner; J S Abramowicz
Related Documents :
3332834 - Fetal imaging and fetal monitoring: finding the ethical issues.
10914314 - Fetal ultrasound.
8418654 - Quantitation of craniofacial anomalies in utero: fetal alcohol and crouzon syndromes an...
12493044 - Mid-trimester ultrasound prediction of gestational age: advantages and systematic errors.
11844914 - Myomectomy as a pregnancy-preserving option in the carefully selected patient.
17341564 - Single serum activin a testing to predict ectopic pregnancy.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology     Volume:  29     ISSN:  0960-7692     ISO Abbreviation:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol     Publication Date:  2007 Mar 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2007-03-01     Completed Date:  2008-02-19     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9108340     Medline TA:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  326-8     Citation Subset:  IM    
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Analysis of Variance
Gestational Age
Obstetrics / methods*
Prospective Studies
Reference Values
Single-Blind Method
Ultrasonography, Prenatal / adverse effects,  methods,  standards*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  The phenalenyl motif: a magnetic chameleon.
Next Document:  Apolipoprotein E phylogeny and evolution.