Fetal startle response observed under ultrasonography: A good predictor of a reassuring biophysical profile

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 88, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 599-602

  Sarinoglu, Cem ^a   Dell, Jeffrey ^a   Mercer, Brian M ^a   Sibai, Baha M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS HEART RATE; FETUS MONITORING; HUMAN; PRENATAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STARTLE REFLEX; VIBRATION SENSE;

EID: 0029791046     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00228-1     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Clark SL, Sabey P, Jolley K. Nonstress testing with acoustic stimulation and amniotic fluid volume assessment. 5973 tests without unexpected fetal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 694-7.
2. Evertson LR, Gauthier RJ, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing. I. Evolution of the non-stress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;33: 29-33.
3. Manning FA, Morrison I, Lange IR, Harman CR, Chamberlain PF. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring experience in 12,620 referred high-risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151: 343-50.
4. Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK, Dorchester W. The value of a negative antepartum test: Contraction stress test and modified biophysical. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84: 231-234.
5. Baskett TF, Allen AC, Grey JH, Young DC, Young LM. Fetal biophysical profile and perinatal death. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70: 357-60.
6. Smith CV, Phelan JP, Platt LD, Broussard P, Paul RH. Fetal acoustic stimulation testing. II: A randomized clinical comparison with the nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;115: 131-4.
7. Inglis SR, Druzin ML, Wagner WE, JCogut E. The use of vibro- acoustic stimulation during the abnormal and equivocal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol 1993;182: 371-4.
8. Romero R, Mazor M, Hobbins J. A critical appraisal of fetal acoustic stimulation as an antenatal test for fetal well-being. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:781-6.
9. Nvman M, Barr M, Westgren M. A four-year follow-up of hearing and development in children exposed in utero to vibro-acoustic stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99: 685-8.
10. Arulkumaran S, Skurr B, Tong H, Kek LP, Yeoh KH, Ratnam SS. No evidence of hearing loss due to fetal acoustic stimulation test. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78: 283-5.
11. Kuhlman K, Burns KA, Depp R, Sabbagha R. Ultrasonic imaging of normal fetal response to external vibratory acoustic stimulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158: 47-51.
12. Divon MY, Platt LD, Cantrell CJ, Smith CV, Yeh SY, Paul RH. Evoked fetal startle response: A possible intrauterine neurological examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153: 454-6.
13. Arulkumaran S, Anandakumor C, Wong YC. Evaluation of maternal perception of sound-provoked fetal movement as a test of antenatal fetal health. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73: 182-6.
14. Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile scoring: Applications in high-risk obstetrics. In: Reece EA, Hobbins JC, Mahoney MS, Petrie RH, eds. Medicine of the fetus and mother. 1st ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company, 1992: 724-38.
15. Smith CV. Vibroacoustic stimulation tor risk assessment. Clin Perinatol 1994;21: 7697-808.
16. ; Devoe LD. Amniotic fluid assessment, methods and role in fetal assessment. Clin Perinatol 1994;21: 809-22.