Literature DB >> 18450141

Safety assurance in obstetrical ultrasound.

Douglas L Miller1.   

Abstract

Safety assurance for diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics began with a tacit assumption of safety allowed by a federal law enacted in 1976 for then-existing medical ultrasound equipment. The implementation of the 510(k) pre-market-approval process for diagnostic ultrasound resulted in the establishment of guideline upper limits for several examination categories in 1985. The obstetrical category has undergone substantial evolution from initial limits (ie, 46 mW/cm2 spatial peak temporal average [SPTA] intensity) set in 1985. Thermal and mechanical exposure indices, which are displayed onscreen according to an Output Display Standard, were developed for safety assurance with relaxed upper limits. In 1992, with the adoption of the Output Display Standard, the allowable output for obstetrical ultrasound was increased in terms of both the average exposure (eg, to a possible 720 mW/cm2 SPTA intensity) and the peak exposure (via the Mechanical Index). There has been little or no subsequent research with the modern obstetrical ultrasound machines to systematically assess potential risks to the fetus using either relevant animal models of obstetrical exposure or human epidemiology studies. The assurance of safety for obstetrical ultrasound therefore is supported by three ongoing means: (1) review of a substantial but uncoordinated bioeffect research literature; (2) the theoretical evaluation of diagnostic ultrasound exposure in terms of thermal and nonthermal mechanisms for bioeffects; and (3) the skill and knowledge of professional sonographers. At this time, there is no specific reason to suspect that there is any significant health risk to the fetus or mother from exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics. This assurance of safety supports the prudent use of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics by trained professionals for any medically indicated examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18450141      PMCID: PMC2390856          DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2007.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR        ISSN: 0887-2171            Impact factor:   1.875


  25 in total

Review 1.  Mechanical bioeffects from diagnostic ultrasound: AIUM consensus statements. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Authors:  J B Fowlkes; C K Holland
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  Fetal stimulation by pulsed diagnostic ultrasound.

Authors:  M Fatemi; P L Ogburn; J F Greenleaf
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Safety of medical diagnostic ultrasound.

Authors:  W L Nyborg
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.875

Review 4.  Routine ultrasound scanning in first trimester: what are the risks?

Authors:  Stanley B Barnett
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.875

5.  WFUMB Symposium on Safety and Standardisation in Medical Ultrasound. Issues and Recommendations Regarding Thermal Mechanisms for Biological Effects of Ultrasound. Hornbaek, Denmark, 30 August-1 September 1991.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Permissible dose: a history of radiation protection in the twentieth century. [Review of: Walker, J.S. Permissible dose: a history of radiation protection in the twentieth century. Berkeley: U. of California Pr., 2000].

Authors:  Sheldon Ungar
Journal:  J Am Hist       Date:  2002

Review 7.  WFUMB Safety Symposium on Echo-Contrast Agents: exposure from diagnostic ultrasound equipment relating to cavitation risk.

Authors:  T Anthony Whittingham
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 8.  Questions about prenatal ultrasound and the alarming increase in autism.

Authors:  Caroline Rodgers
Journal:  Midwifery Today Int Midwife       Date:  2006

Review 9.  Epidemiological prenatal ultrasound studies.

Authors:  Kjell A Salvesen
Journal:  Prog Biophys Mol Biol       Date:  2006-08-22       Impact factor: 3.667

10.  Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice.

Authors:  Eugenius S B C Ang; Vicko Gluncic; Alvaro Duque; Mark E Schafer; Pasko Rakic
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  17 in total

1.  Acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnancy: ESUR recommendations.

Authors:  Gabriele Masselli; Lorenzo Derchi; Josephine McHugo; Andrea Rockall; Peter Vock; Michael Weston; John Spencer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Prenatal ultrasound heating impacts on fluctuations in haematological analysis of Oryctolagus cuniculus.

Authors:  Farah Wahida Ahmad Zaiki; Sulaiman Md Dom; Hairil Rashmizal Abdul Razak; Hamzah Fansuri Hassan
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2013-10

3.  Focused ultrasound transiently increases membrane conductance in isolated crayfish axon.

Authors:  Jen-Wei Lin; Feiyuan Yu; Wolfgang S Müller; Gösta Ehnholm; Yoshio Okada
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Electroacoustic response of 1-3 piezocomposite transducers for high power applications.

Authors:  Hyeong Jae Lee; Shujun Zhang; Xuecang Geng; Thomas R Shrout
Journal:  Appl Phys Lett       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 5.  First trimester ultrasound: current approaches and practical pitfalls.

Authors:  Ozgur Oztekin
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 1.314

6.  Ultrasonographic diagnosis of pregnancy in rats.

Authors:  Petros Ypsilantis; Savvas Deftereos; Panagiotis Prassopoulos; Constantinos Simopoulos
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.232

7.  A system for investigation of biological effects of diagnostic ultrasound on development of zebrafish embryos.

Authors:  Douglas L Miller; Weibin Zhou
Journal:  Zebrafish       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 1.985

8.  Virtual Dissection by Ultrasound: Probe Handling in the First Year of Medical Education.

Authors:  Graziano Serrao; Massimo Tassoni; Alberto M Magenta-Biasina; Antonio Giuseppe Mantero; Antonino Previtera; Michela Crisitna Turci; Elia Mario Biganzoli; Emanuela A M Bertolini
Journal:  Ultrasound Int Open       Date:  2017-12-07

9.  Effects of ultrasound and ultrasound contrast agent on vascular tissue.

Authors:  Steven C Wood; Sible Antony; Ronald P Brown; Jin Chen; Edward A Gordon; Victoria M Hitchins; Qin Zhang; Yunbo Liu; Subha Maruvada; Gerald R Harris
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 2.062

10.  Prenatal ultrasound exposure and association with postnatal hearing outcomes.

Authors:  Claude F Harbarger; Paul M Weinberger; Jack C Borders; Charles A Hughes
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2013-01-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.