Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-18T10:49:54.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ULTRASOUND SAFETY, POWER AND IMAGE QUALITY: WHAT DO WE KNOW?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2014

RAGNAR KVIE SANDE  and
TORVID KISERUD
RAGNAR KVIE SANDE*
Affiliation:
Clinical Fetal Physiology Research Group, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
TORVID KISERUD
Affiliation:
Clinical Fetal Physiology Research Group, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
*
Ragnar Kvie Sande, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Stavanger University Hospital, Postboks 8100, 4068 Stavanger, Norway. Email: ragnar.sande@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , November 2013 , pp. 260 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Whitworth, M, Bricker, L, Neilson, JP, Dowswell, T. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. Art. No.:CD007058. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007058.pub2.Google Scholar
2Stampalija, T, Gyte, GM, Alfirevic, Z. Utero-placental Doppler ultrasound for improving pregnancy outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. Art. No.:CD008363. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008363.pub2.Google Scholar
3Nyborg, WL, Carson, PL, Carstensen, EL, Dunn, F, Miller, D, Miller, MW, et al. Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: II. Criteria Based on all Known Mechanisms: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Measurements NCoRPa;2002. Report No.: 140.Google Scholar
4Salvesen, KA. Ultrasound in pregnancy and non-right handedness: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Sep; 38 (3): 267–71.Google Scholar
5Pellicer, B, Herraiz, S, Taboas, E, Felipo, V, Simon, C, Pellicer, A. Ultrasound bioeffects in rats: quantification of cellular damage in the fetal liver after pulsed Doppler imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Jun; 37 (6): 643–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Schneider-Kolsky, ME, Ayobi, Z, Lombardo, P, Brown, D, Kedang, B, Gibbs, ME. Ultrasound exposure of the foetal chick brain: effects on learning and memory. Int J Dev Neurosci 2009 Nov; 27 (7): 677–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Abramowicz, JS, Kossoff, G, Marsal, K, Ter Haar, G. Safety Statement, 2000 (reconfirmed 2003). International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003 Jan; 21 (1): 100.Google Scholar
8BMUS. Guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound equipment. The Safety group of the British Medical Ultrasound Society; 2009.Google Scholar
9Duck, FA. Nonlinear acoustics in diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002 Jan; 28 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
10Tchirikov, M, Kertschanska, S, Sturenberg, HJ, Schroder, HJ. Liver blood perfusion as a possible instrument for fetal growth regulation. Placenta 2002 Apr; 23 (Suppl A): S153–8.Google Scholar
11Torloni, MR, Vedmedovska, N, Merialdi, M, Betran, AP, Allen, T, Gonzalez, R, et al.Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009 May; 33 (5): 599–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Newnham, JP, Evans, SF, Michael, CA, Stanley, FJ, Landau, LI. Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1993 Oct 9; 342 (8876): 887–91.Google Scholar
13Salvesen, KA, Bakketeig, LS, Eik-nes, SH, Undheim, JO, Okland, O. Routine ultrasonography in utero and school performance at age 8–9 years. Lancet 1992 Jan 11; 339 (8785): 85–9.Google ScholarPubMed
14Salvesen, KA, Vatten, LJ, Jacobsen, G, Eik-Nes, SH, Okland, O, Molne, K, et al.Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent vision and hearing at primary school age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992 Jul 1; 2 (4): 243–4, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Salvesen, KA, Vatten, LJ, Eik-Nes, SH, Hugdahl, K, Bakketeig, LS. Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurological development. Bmj 1993 Jul 17; 307 (6897): 159–64.Google Scholar
16Newnham, JP, Doherty, DA, Kendall, GE, Zubrick, SR, Landau, LL, Stanley, FJ. Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004 Dec 4–10; 364 (9450): 2038–44.Google Scholar
17Kieler, H, Haglund, B, Cnattingius, S, Palmgren, J, Axelsson, O. Does prenatal sonography affect intellectual performance? Epidemiology 2005 May; 16 (3): 304–10.Google Scholar
18Stalberg, K, Haglund, B, Axelsson, O, Cnattingius, S, Hultman, CM, Kieler, H. Prenatal ultrasound scanning and the risk of schizophrenia and other psychoses. Epidemiology 2007 Sep; 18 (5): 577–82.Google Scholar
19Kieler, H, Cnattingius, S, Haglund, B, Palmgren, J, Axelsson, O. Sinistrality–a side-effect of prenatal sonography: a comparative study of young men. Epidemiology 2001 Nov; 12 (6): 618–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Stalberg, K, Haglund, B, Axelsson, O, Cnattingius, S, Pfeifer, S, Kieler, H. Prenatal ultrasound and the risk of childhood brain tumour and its subtypes. Br J Cancer 2008 Apr 8; 98 (7): 1285–7.Google Scholar
21Cartwright, RA, McKinney, PA, Hopton, PA, Birch, JM, Hartley, AL, Mann, JR, et al.Ultrasound examinations in pregnancy and childhood cancer. Lancet 1984 Nov 3; 2 (8410): 999–1000.Google ScholarPubMed
22Hindley, J, Gedroyc, WM, Regan, L, Stewart, E, Tempany, C, Hynyen, K, et al.MRI guidance of focused ultrasound therapy of uterine fibroids: early results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004 Dec; 183 (6): 1713–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Rutten, S, Nolte, PA, Korstjens, CM, van Duin, MA, Klein-Nulend, J. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound increases bone volume, osteoid thickness and mineral apposition rate in the area of fracture healing in patients with a delayed union of the osteotomized fibula. Bone. 2008 Aug; 43 (2): 348–54.Google Scholar
24Hocevar, Z, Rozman, J, Paska, AV, Frangez, R, Vaupotic, T, Hudler, P. Gene expression profiling of rat fetuses exposed to 2-dimensional ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2012 Jun; 31 (6): 923–32.Google Scholar
25Ang, ES Jr., Gluncic, V, Duque, A, Schafer, ME, Rakic, P. Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006 Aug 22; 103 (34): 12903–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26ter Haar, G, Shaw, A, Pye, S, Ward, B, Bottomley, F, Nolan, R, et al.Guidance on reporting ultrasound exposure conditions for bio-effects studies. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011 Feb; 37 (2): 177–83.Google Scholar
27committee WS. WFUMB Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound - an overview. WFUMB website. [Safety statement]. 2012.Google Scholar
28Safety, ECoMU. Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound. ECMUS Website. [Safety statement]. 2011.Google Scholar
29AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2013 Jun; 32 (6): 1083–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Salvesen, K, Lees, C, Abramowicz, J, Brezinka, C, Ter Haar, G, Marsal, K. ISUOG statement on the safe use of Doppler in the 11 to 13 +6-week fetal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Jun; 37 (6): 628.Google Scholar
31Sheiner, E, Freeman, J, Abramowicz, JS. Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2005 Dec; 24 (12): 1665–70.Google Scholar
32Sheiner, E, Shoham-Vardi, I, Pombar, X, Hussey, MJ, Strassner, HT, Abramowicz, JS. An increased thermal index can be achieved when performing Doppler studies in obstetric sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2007 Jan; 26 (1): 71–6.Google Scholar
33Marsal, K. The output display standard: has it missed its target? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005 Mar; 25 (3): 211–4.Google Scholar
34Kremkau, FW. Clinical benefit of higher acoustic output levels. Ultrasound Med Biol 1989; 15(Suppl 1): 69–70.Google Scholar
35Harris, GR, Stewart, HF, Leo, FP, Sanders, RC. Relationship between image quality and ultrasound exposure level in diagnostic US devices. Radiology 1989 Nov; 173 (2): 313–7.Google Scholar
36Yagita, Y, Etani, H, Handa, N, Itoh, T, Imuta, N, Okamoto, M, et al.Effect of transcranial Doppler intensity on successful recording in Japanese patients. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22 (6): 701–5.Google Scholar
37Lombardi, CM, Bellotti, M, Fesslova, V, Cappellini, A. Fetal echocardiography at the time of the nuchal translucency scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007 Mar; 29 (3): 249–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Sande, RK, Matre, K, Eide, GE, Kiserud, T. Ultrasound safety in early pregnancy: reduced energy setting does not compromise obstetric Doppler measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012 Apr; 39 (4): 438–43.Google Scholar
39Sande, RK, Matre, K, Eide, GE, Kiserud, T. The effects of reducing the thermal index for bone from 1.0 to 0.5 and 0.1 on common obstetric pulsed wave Doppler measurements in the second half of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013 Jul; 92 (7): 790–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Sande, RK, Matre, K, Eide, GE, Kiserud, T. The effect of ultrasound output level on obstetric biometric measurements. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013 Jan; 39 (1): 37–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed