Ultrasound in Obstetrics – More Safe?
Keywords:
ultrasound, obstetrics, safety of ultrasoundAbstract
Nowadays, ultrasonography has become a basic diagnostic tool in prenatal medicine. In developed countries, most fetuses are exposed to ultrasound at least once throughout pregnancy. Safe use of ultrasound is imperative in fetal scanning.
The paper presents bioeffects of ultrasound on living tissue and describes standards for safe use of ultrasound in obstetrics. Theoretical assumptions are related to the practical aspects of ultrasound examinations with the latest literature data on the safety of ultrasound in obstetrics.
References
1. Nyborg WL. Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part I: personal historie. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:911-64.
2. Nyborg WL. Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part II: general review. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:301-33.
3. Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ, et al., Intestinal hemorrhage from exposure to pulsed ultrasound, Ultrasound Med Biol. 1995;21:1067-72.
4. Stratmeyer ME, Greenleaf JF, Dalecki D, et al., Fetal ultrasound: mechanical effects. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:597-605.
5. Ang ES Jr, Gluncic V, Duque A, et al., Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;22:103:12903-10.
6. Salvesen KA, Lees C, Ultrasound is not unsound, but safety is an issue. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33: 502–5.
7. Bioeffects considerations for the safety of diagnostic ultrasound. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Bioeffects Committee. J Ultrasound Med. 1988;7(Suppl):S1-38.
8. Operation Manual, Voluson 730 Expert, General Electric Kretztechnik GmbH & Co. OHG, 2005.
9. Abramowicz JS, Barnett SB, Duck FA, Edmonds PD, Hynynen KH, Ziskin MC, Fetal thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound, J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:541-59
10. AIUM/NEMA (American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and National Electrical Manufacturers Association). ODS Standard for real-time display of thermal and mechanical indices on diagnostic ultrasound equipment. AIUM/NEMA, Laurel, MD and Rosslyn, VA
11. Abbott JG, Rationale and derivation of MI and TI-a review, Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999;25:431-41.
12. Nelson TR, Fowlkes JB, Abramowicz JS, Church CC. Ultrasound biosafety considerations for the practicing sonographer and sinologist. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:139-50.
13. Fowlkes JB; Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine consensus report on potential bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound: executive Sumary. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:503-15.
14. Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, Betrán AP, Allen T, González R, Platt LD. ISUOG-WHO Fetal Growth Study Group. Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:599-608.
15. Marsál K. The output display standard: has it missed its target? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:211-4.
16. Bioeffects and Safety Committee (Salvesen K, Lees C, Abramowicz J, Brezinka C, Ter Haar G, Maršál K) on behalf of the Board of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), ISUOG-WFUMB statement on the non-medical use of ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:608.
17. Salvesen KA, Eik-Nes SH, Is ultrasound unsound? A review of epidemiological studies of human exposure to ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6:293-8.
