Literature DB >> 26507696

What Is the Rate of Incomplete Fetal Anatomic Surveys During a Second-Trimester Scan? Retrospective Observational Study of 4000 Nonobese Pregnant Women.

Francesco Padula1, Ferdinando Antonio Gulino2, Stella Capriglione2, Maurizio Giorlandino2, Pietro Cignini2, Maria Luisa Mastrandrea2, Laura D'Emidio2, Claudio Giorlandino2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate the rate of incomplete fetal anatomic surveys during a second-trimester scan due to an unfavorable fetal position in a nonobese population.
METHODS: All pregnant women who came to the Altamedica Fetal-Maternal Medical Center, a specialized center for prenatal diagnosis, for a routine second-trimester scan between January 2012 and April 2013 were retrospectively included in the analysis. Patients with a body mass index higher than 30.0 kg/m(2) or anterior fibroids larger than 5 cm were not included in the study.
RESULTS: Of 4000 pregnant women admitted for a second-trimester scan, 169 (4.2%) came back within 2 weeks to complete the examination because of an unfavorable fetal position. In particular, 104 (2.6%) needed visualization of only 1 view, and 65 (1.6%) needed more than 1 view. The most difficult organ to visualize was the corpus callosum, in 73 cases (1.8%); the face was not visualized in 69 cases (1.7%); the cerebellar vermis was not seen in 47 fetuses (1.1%); and the heart could not be completely examined in 40 fetuses (1.0%). Of the 4000 women, 169 (4.2%) had a nonexhaustive scan; 149 (3.7%) needed a second scan to complete the second-trimester survey; 14 (0.35%) needed a third scan; and 2 (0.05%) remained with a not completely exhaustive scan.
CONCLUSIONS: There is always a small percentage of incomplete fetal anatomic surveys during a second-trimester scan, which cannot be modified by the sonographer's skill or by technical sonographic innovations.
© 2015 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fetal anatomy; fetal position; fetal sonography; obstetric ultrasound; second-trimester scan; sonographic skill

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26507696     DOI: 10.7863/ultra.15.01029

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


  3 in total

1.  Helping expectant mothers understand inadequate ultrasound images.

Authors:  Crispian Oates; Paula Taylor
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2016-05-20

2.  Ultrasonographic evaluation of placental cord insertion at different gestational ages in low-risk singleton pregnancies: a predictive algorithm.

Authors:  F Padula; A S Laganà; S G Vitale; L Mangiafico; L D'Emidio; P Cignini; M Giorlandino; F A Gulino; S Capriglione; C Giorlandino
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2016-03-28

3.  Measurement error of mean sac diameter and crown-rump length among pregnant women at Mulago hospital, Uganda.

Authors:  Sam Ali; Rosemary Kusaba Byanyima; Sam Ononge; Jerry Ictho; Jean Nyamwiza; Emmanuel Lako Ernesto Loro; John Mukisa; Angella Musewa; Annet Nalutaaya; Ronald Ssenyonga; Ismael Kawooya; Benjamin Temper; Achilles Katamba; Joan Kalyango; Charles Karamagi
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.007

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.