Ultrasound biosafety considerations for the practicing sonographer and sonologist

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 139-150

  Nelson, Thomas R ^a,e   Fowlkes, J Brian ^b   Abramowicz, Jacques S ^c   Church, Charles C ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c RUSH MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioeffects; Fetal; Mechanical index; Output display standard; Thermal index; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ULTRASONICS;

BIO-EFFECTS; DISPLAY STANDARDS; FETAL; MECHANICAL INDEXES; THERMAL INDEX;

BIOHAZARDS;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ACOUSTICS; BIOSAFETY; ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; ULTRASOUND SCANNER; BURN; FEMALE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL EXPOSURE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BURNS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL EXPOSURE DELAYED EFFECTS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 64349104064     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2009.28.2.139     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound, II: Criteria Based on All Known Mechanisms. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2002. NCRP report 140.
2. British Medical Ultrasound Society Safety Group. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. London, England: British Medical Ultrasound Society; 2000.
3. European Committee of Medical Ultrasound Safety. Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound. London, England: European Committee of Medical Ultrasound Safety; 2006.
4. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. How to interpret the ultrasound output display standard for higher acoustic output diagnostic ultrasound devices: version 2 [technical bulletin]. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23:723-726.
5. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Information for Manufacturers Seeking Marketing Clearance of Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems and Transducers. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health; 2008. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/560.pdf.
6. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Standard for Real- Time Display of Thermal and Mechanical Acoustic Output Indices on Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. Revision 2. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2004.
7. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Medical Ultrasound Safety. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 1994.
8. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Medical Ultrasound Safety. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 1994. 8. Szabo TL. Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging: Inside Out. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
9. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Acoustic Output Measurement Standard for Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. Revision 1. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2004. NEMA standards publication UD 2-2004.
10. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Introduction. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):69-72.
11. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 1: conclusions and recommendations. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue): 73-76.
12. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 2: definitions and description of nonthermal mechanisms. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):77-84.
13. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 3: selected biological properties of tissues: potential determinants of susceptibility to ultrasound-induced bioeffects. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):85-96.
14. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 4: bioeffects in tissues with gas bodies. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue): 97-108.
15. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 5: nonthermal bioeffects in the absence of well-defined gas bodies. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):109-119.
16. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 6: mechanical bioeffects in the presence of gas carrier ultrasound contrast agents. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):120-142.
17. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine: Section 7: discussion of the mechanical index and other exposure parameters. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):143-148.
18. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Section 8: clinical relevance. In: Mechanical Bioeffects From Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19(special issue):149-168.
19. Church CC, Carstensen EL, Nyborg WL, Carson PL, Frizzell LA, Bailey MR. The risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects: nonthermal mechanisms. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue):565-592.
20. Stratmeyer ME, Greenleaf JF, Dalecki D, Salvesen KA. Fetal ultrasound: mechanical effects. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue):597-605.
21. Miller DL, Averkiou MA, Brayman AA, et al. Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue):611-632.
22. O'Brien WD, Deng CX, Harris GR, et al. The risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects: thermal effects. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue):517-535.
23. Abramowicz JS, Barnett SB, Duck FA, Edmonds PD, Hynynen KH, Ziskin MC. Fetal thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue):541-559.
24. Church CC, Miller MW. Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2007; 93:331-353. 25. World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine. Conclusions and recommendations on thermal and non- thermal mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound; Kloster-Banz, Germany; 14-19 April, 1996. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24(suppl 1):i-xvi, S1-S58.
25. World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine. Conclusions and recommendations on thermal and non- thermal mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound; Kloster-Banz, Germany; 14-19 April,1996. UltrasoundMed Biol 1998; 24(suppl 1):i-xvi, S1-S58.
26. Rados C. FDA cautions against ultrasound "keepsake" images. FDA Consumer 2004; January-February. www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/104-images. html.
27. Sheiner E, Freeman J, Abramowicz JS. Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:1665-1670. (Pubitemid 41780710)
28. Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Pombar X, Hussey MJ, Strassner HT, Abramowicz JS. An increased thermal index can be achieved during Doppler studies in obstetric sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26:71-76. (Pubitemid 46080078)
29. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of an antepartum obstetric ultrasound examination. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:1116-1125.
30. Abramowicz JS, Fowlkes JB, Skelly AC, Stratmeyer ME, Ziskin MC. Conclusions regarding epidemiology for obstetric ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue): 637-644.
31. Fowlkes JB; Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine consensus report on potential bio- effects of diagnostic ultrasound: executive summary. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(special issue):503-515.
32. Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Abramowicz JS. What do clinical users know regarding safety of ultrasound during pregnancy? J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26:319-325.