Literature DB >> 16301723

Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine obstetric ultrasound examinations.

Eyal Sheiner1, Jody Freeman, Jacques S Abramowicz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the acoustic output of clinical ultrasound instruments, as expressed by the thermal index (TI) and mechanical index (MI), during routine obstetric examinations.
METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted. Sonographers were unaware of the data being sought. Data were collected regarding duration of the examination and specific duration spent at each MI and TI.
RESULTS: A total of 11 first-trimester, 14 second-trimester, and 12 third-trimester examinations were evaluated. The mean duration of the first-trimester examination was 8.9 minutes. The mean MI was 0.73 (range, 0.3-1.3), and the mean TI was 0.34 (0.1-1.7). The mean duration of the second-trimester examination was 31.8 minutes. The mean MI was 1.04 (0.5-1.5), and the mean TI was 0.28 (0.1-2.4). The mean duration of the third-trimester examination was 16.3 minutes. The mean MI was 1.06 (0.2-1.5), and the mean TI was 0.32 (0.1-2.4). Statistical significance existed across trimesters with regard to examination durations and MI (P < .001). However, no statistical significance existed in the TI across trimesters. During the third trimester, 3.5% of the examinations had a TI of greater than 1.0. Of these, 2.4% were between 1.0 and 1.49 and 1.1% were greater than 1.5. These changes (of TI > or = 1) were brief (mean +/- SD, 0.17 +/- 0.08 minutes) and were observed during the short periods of color Doppler imaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Output levels during routine obstetric ultrasound examinations, as expressed by the MI and TI, are generally low. However, higher output levels, particularly TI levels of greater than 1.5, can be achieved, although they account for only a very small proportion of examination time.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16301723     DOI: 10.7863/jum.2005.24.12.1665

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 0278-4297            Impact factor:   2.153


  5 in total

1.  Our unborn children at risk?

Authors:  V S Caviness; P E Grant
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Women's Attitudes Toward Self-Monitoring of Their Pregnancy Using Noninvasive Electronic Devices: Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Katharina Schramm; Niklas Grassl; Juliane Nees; Janine Hoffmann; Holger Stepan; Thomas Bruckner; Markus W Haun; Imad Maatouk; Markus Haist; Timm C Schott; Christof Sohn; Sarah Schott
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 4.773

3.  Ultrasound biosafety: Knowledge and opinions of health practitioners who perform obstetric scans in South Africa.

Authors:  Salome E Mashiane; Barbara van Dyk; Yasmin Casmod
Journal:  Health SA       Date:  2019-10-17

4.  Study of the association between the incidences of congenital anomalies and hydrocephalus in Sudanese fetuses.

Authors:  Mustafa Z Mahmoud; Hussien A Dinar; Alsafi A Abdulla; Esameldeen Babikir; Abdelmoneim Sulieman
Journal:  Glob J Health Sci       Date:  2014-04-27

5.  Obstetric ultrasound: where are we and where are we going?

Authors:  Jacques S Abramowicz
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2020-08-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.