OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3-dimensional/4-dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. METHODS: Ninety-nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography. Volume data sets were evaluated by a blinded independent examiner who, after establishing an initial diagnostic impression by 3D/4D ultrasonography, performed a 2D ultrasonographic examination. The frequency of agreement and diagnostic accuracy of each modality to detect congenital anomalies were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Fifty-four fetuses with no abnormalities and 45 fetuses with 82 anomalies diagnosed by 2D ultrasonography were examined. Agreement between 3D/4D and 2D ultrasonography occurred for 90.4% of the findings (123/136; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.834; 95% confidence interval, 0.774-0.879). Six anomalies were missed by 3D/4D ultrasonography when compared to 2D ultrasonography (ventricular septal defect [n = 2], interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation [n = 1], tetralogy of Fallot [n = 1], horseshoe kidney [n = 1], and cystic adenomatoid malformation [n = 1]). There were 2 discordant diagnoses: transposition of the great arteries diagnosed as a double-outlet right ventricle and pulmonary atresia misinterpreted as tricuspid atresia on 3D/4D ultrasonography. One case of occult spinal dysraphism was suspected on 3D ultrasonography but not confirmed by 2D ultrasonography. When compared to diagnoses performed after delivery (n = 106), the sensitivity and specificity of 3D/4D ultrasonography (92.2% [47/51] and 76.4% [42/55], respectively) and 2D ultrasonography (96.1% [49/51] and 72.7% [40/55]) were not significantly different (P = .233). CONCLUSIONS: Information provided by 2D ultrasonography is consistent, in most cases, with information provided by the examination of 3D/4D volume data sets alone.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3-dimensional/4-dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. METHODS: Ninety-nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography. Volume data sets were evaluated by a blinded independent examiner who, after establishing an initial diagnostic impression by 3D/4D ultrasonography, performed a 2D ultrasonographic examination. The frequency of agreement and diagnostic accuracy of each modality to detect congenital anomalies were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Fifty-four fetuses with no abnormalities and 45 fetuses with 82 anomalies diagnosed by 2D ultrasonography were examined. Agreement between 3D/4D and 2D ultrasonography occurred for 90.4% of the findings (123/136; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.834; 95% confidence interval, 0.774-0.879). Six anomalies were missed by 3D/4D ultrasonography when compared to 2D ultrasonography (ventricular septal defect [n = 2], interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation [n = 1], tetralogy of Fallot [n = 1], horseshoe kidney [n = 1], and cystic adenomatoid malformation [n = 1]). There were 2 discordant diagnoses: transposition of the great arteries diagnosed as a double-outlet right ventricle and pulmonary atresia misinterpreted as tricuspid atresia on 3D/4D ultrasonography. One case of occult spinal dysraphism was suspected on 3D ultrasonography but not confirmed by 2D ultrasonography. When compared to diagnoses performed after delivery (n = 106), the sensitivity and specificity of 3D/4D ultrasonography (92.2% [47/51] and 76.4% [42/55], respectively) and 2D ultrasonography (96.1% [49/51] and 72.7% [40/55]) were not significantly different (P = .233). CONCLUSIONS: Information provided by 2D ultrasonography is consistent, in most cases, with information provided by the examination of 3D/4D volume data sets alone.
Authors: T R Nelson; D H Pretorius; A Lev-Toaff; G Bega; N E Budorick; K A Hollenbach; L Needleman Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: R L Dyson; D H Pretorius; N E Budorick; D D Johnson; M S Sklansky; C J Cantrell; S Lai; T R Nelson Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza; Ana Paula Passos; Edward Araujo Júnior; Rafael Frederico Bruns; Antonio Fernandes Moron Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2014 Jul-Aug