Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves: Is there a risk?

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 363-367

  Abramowicz, J S ^a  

^a RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRTH DEFECT; BRAIN CELL; CELL MIGRATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOGRAPHY; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INTRAUTERINE GROWTH RETARDATION; LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; PRENATAL EXPOSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MICE; MODELS, ANIMAL; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL EXPOSURE DELAYED EFFECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 34247333837     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.3983     Document Type: Editorial

References (48)

1. Ang ESBC, Gluncic V, Duque A, Shafer ME, Rakic P. Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 12903-12910.
2. Morris County Daily Record, November 14, 2006. ID: 20113287.
3. Edmunds PD, Abramowicz JS, Carson PL, Carstensen EL, Sandstrom KL. Guidelines for JUM authors and reviewers on measurements and reporting of acoustic output and exposure. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 1171-1179.
4. Sheiner E, Hackmon R, Shoham-Vardi I, Pombar X, Hussey MJ, Strassner HT, Abramowicz JS. Comparison between acoustic output indices in 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound in obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 326-328.
5. Devi PU, Suresh R, Hande MP. Effect of fetal exposure to ultrasound on the behavior of the adult mouse. Radiat Res 1995; 141: 314-317.
6. Tarantal AF, Hendrickx AG. Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): II. Growth and behavior during the first year. Teratology 1989; 39: 149-162.
7. Stark CR, Orleans M, Haverkamp AD, Murphy J. Short- and long-term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 194-200.
8. Campbell JD, Elford RW, Brant RF. Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech. CMAJ 1993; 149: 1435-1440.
9. Newnham JP, Evans SF, Michael CA, Stanley FJ, Landau LI. Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1993; 342: 887-891.
10. Newnham JP, Doherty DA, Kendall GE, Zubrick SR, Landau LL, Stanley FJ. Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 2038-2044.
11. Kieler H, Cnattingius S, Haglund B, Palmgren J, Axelsson O. Ultrasound and adverse effects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 102-103.
12. Abramowicz JS, Kossoff G, Marsal K, Ter Haar G. Literature review by the ISUOG Bioeffects and Safety Committee. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 318-319.
13. Norton S, Kimler BF, Cytacki EP, Rosenthal SJ. Prenatal and postnatal consequences in the brain and behavior of rats exposed to ultrasound in utero. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10: 69-75.
14. Yip YP, Capriotti C, Norbash SG, Rosenthal MS, Yip JW. Ultrasound effects on cell proliferation and migration of chick motoneurons. Ultrasound Med Biol 1991; 17: 55-63.
15. Caviness VS, Grant PE. Our unborn children at risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 12661-12662.
16. Rakic P. Mode of cell migration to the superficial layers of fetal monkey neocortex. J Comp Neurol 1972; 145: 61-83.
17. Buxhoeveden DP, Casanova MF. The minicolumn hypothesis in neuroscience. Brain 2003; 125: 935-951.
18. FDA. 510(k) Guide for Measuring and Reporting Acoustic Output of Diagnostic Ultrasound Medical Devices. Food & Drug Administration: Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Rockville, MD, 1985.
19. FDA. Revised 510(k) Diagnostic Ultrasound Guidance for 1993. Food & Drug Administration: Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Rockville, MD, 1993.
20. AIUM/NEMA. Standard for Real-Time Display of Thermal and Mechanical Acoustic Output Indices on Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine: Laurel, MD, 1996.
21. Information for Manufacturers Seeking Marketing Clearance of Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems and Transducers. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/ulstran.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2006].
22. Shiota K. Induction of neural tube defects and skeletal malformations in mice following brief hyperthermia in utero. Biol Neonate 1988; 53: 86-97.
23. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: II. Criteria Based on All Known Mechanisms. Report No. 140. NCRP: Bethesda, MD, 2002.
24. Duck FA, Starritt HC. A study of the heating capabilities of diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1984; 20: 481-492.
25. Bosward KL, Barnett SB, Wood AKW, Edwards MJ, Kossoff G. Heating of the guinea-pig fetal brain during exposure to pulsed ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1993; 19: 415-424.
26. Carstensen EL, Child SZ, Norton S, Nyborg W. Ultrasonic heating of the skull. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 87: 1310-1317.
27. Horder MM, Barnett SB, Vella GJ, Edwards MJ, Wood AK. Ultrasound-induced temperature increase in guinea-pig fetal brain in utero: third-trimester gestation. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24: 1501-1510.
28. Barnett SB. Conclusions and recommendations on thermal and non-thermal mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound, Barnett SB (ed). In: WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24: (special issue).
29. Miller MW, Miller RK, Battaglia LF, Dewey WC, Edwards MJ, Nyborg WL, Cox C, Abramowicz JS. The delta-T thermal dose concept: 1. In vivo teratogenesis. J Thermal Biol 2004; 29: 141-149.
30. O'Brien Jr WD, Miller DL. Diagnostic ultrasound should be performed without upper intensity limits. Point-counter point. Med Phys 2001; 28: 1-3.
31. Harris GR, Stewart HF, Leo FP, Sanders RC. Relationship between image quality and ultrasound exposure level in diagnostic US devices. Radiology 1989; 173: 313-317.
32. Marsál K. The output display standard: has it missed its target? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 211-214.
33. Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Abramowicz JS. What do clinical users know regarding safety of ultrasound during pregnancy? J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26: (in press).
34. Dinno MA, Dyson M, Young SR, Mortimer AJ, Hart J, Crum LA. The significance of membrane changes in the safe and effective use of therapeutic and diagnostic ultrasound. Phys Med Biol 1989; 34: 1543-1552.
35. Edwards MJ. Hyperthermia as a teratogen: a review of experimental studies and their clinical significance. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1986; 6: 563-582.
36. Edwards MJ. Commentaries on hyperthermia. Birth Defects Res 2006; 76: 507-516.
37. Shattock P, Whiteley P. The changing prevalence of autism? http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/incidence.htm#nasfigures [Accessed 10 November 2006].
38. Autism Society of America. http://www.autism-society.org [Accessed 10 November 2006].
39. Rodier PM, Ingram JL, Tisdale B, Nelson S, Romano J. Embryological origin for autism: developmental anomalies of the cranial nerve motor nuclei. J Comp Neurol 1996; 370: 247-261.
40. Ingram JL, Peckham SM, Tisdale B, Rodier PM. Prenatal exposure of rats to valproic acid reproduces the cerebellar anomalies associated with autism. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2000; 22: 319-324.
41. Bello SO. How we may be missing some harmful effects of ultrasound - A hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 2006; 67: 765-769.
42. Sheiner E, Freeman J, Abramowicz JS. Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine obstetrical ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 1665-1670.
43. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Clinical safety statement for diagnostic ultrasound. Report from the European Committee for Ultrasound. Eur J Ultrasound 1996; 3: 283. (2006 revision available at: http://www.efsumb.org/efsumb/committees/Safety_Committee/ ).
44. Abramowicz JS, Kossoff G, Marsal K, Ter Haar G. International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology Bioeffects and Safety Committee. Safety Statement, 2000 (reconfirmed 2003). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 100.
45. Abramowicz JS. Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology: is this hot technology too hot? J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21: 1327-1333.
46. AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of an Antepartum Obstetric Ultrasound Examination, 2003; http://www. aium.org/publications/statements/ statements.asp [Accessed 10 November 2006].
47. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Guidelines for the safe use of Doppler ultrasound for clinical applications. Report from the European Committee for Ultrasound Safety. Eur J Ultrasound 1995; 2: 167-168.
48. Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (ASUM): Statement On The Safety Of Ultrasound in Grey Scale Imaging In Obstetrics (reaffirmed, 2000) and Safety Statement On Thermal Biological Effects (reaffirmed, 2000). http://www.asum.com.au/open/P&S/policies.htm [Accessed 16 November 2006].