Narrowed beam width in newer ultrasound machines shortens measurements in the lateral direction: Fetal measurement charts may be obsolete

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 82-87

  Okland I ^a,b   Bjastad T G ^c   Johansen, T F ^c   Gjessing, H K ^d,e   Grottum P ^f   Eik Nes, S H ^a,c  

^a TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b STAVANGER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^d NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

beam width; crown rump length; date of delivery; femur length; fetal measurements; gestational age; resolution

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; ECHOGRAPHY; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; FEMUR; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT; REFERENCE VALUE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIOMETRY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; FEMUR; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; REFERENCE VALUES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 79959754350     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.8954     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Degani S,. Fetal biometry: clinical, pathological, and technical considerations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56: 159-167. (Pubitemid 32202568)
2. Snijders RJ, Nicolaides KH,. Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 34-48.
3. DuBose TJ, Hill LW,. Physics and methodology of obstetrical sonography. In Fetal Sonography, DuBose TJ, (ed). W.B. Saunders Company: Philadelphia, PA, 1996; 73-75.
4. Pretorius DH, Nelson TR, Manco-Johnson ML,. Fetal age estimation by ultrasound: the impact of measurement errors. Radiology 1984; 152: 763-766. (Pubitemid 14060629)
5. MacGregor SN, Tamura RK, Sabbagha RE, Minogue JP, Gibson ME, Hoffman DI,. Underestimation of gestational age by conventional crown-rump length dating curves. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 344-348. (Pubitemid 17151653)
6. Pexsters A, Daemen A, Bottomley C, Van Schoubroeck D, De Catte L, De Moor B, D'Hooghe T, Lees C, Timmerman D, Bourne T,. New crown-rump length curve based on over 3500 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 650-655.
7. Longo D, DeFigueiredo D, Cicero S, Sacchini C, Nicolaides KH,. Femur and humerus length in trisomy 21 fetuses at 11-14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 143-147. (Pubitemid 38221787)
8. Verburg BO, Steegers EA, De Ridder M, Snijders RJ, Smith E, Hofman A, Moll HA, Jaddoe VW, Witteman JC,. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and assessment of fetal growth: longitudinal data from a population-based cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 388-396.
9. Leung TN, Pang MW, Daljit SS, Leung TY, Poon CF, Wong SM, Lau TK,. Fetal biometry in ethnic Chinese: biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 321-327.
10. Jago JR, Whittingham TA, Heslop R,. The influence of ultrasound scanner beam width on femur length measurements. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994; 20: 699-703. (Pubitemid 24370178)
11. Robinson HP, Fleming JE,. A critical evaluation of sonar 'crown-rump length' measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975; 82: 702-710.
12. Gamba JL, Bowie JD, Dodson WC, Hedlund LW,. Accuracy of ultrasound in fetal femur length determination. Ultrasound phantom study. Invest Radiol 1985; 20: 316-323. (Pubitemid 15044695)
13. Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH,. Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728-734.
14. Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH,. A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19-27. (Pubitemid 47074847)
15. Goldstein RB, Filly RA, Simpson G,. Pitfalls in femur length measurements. J Ultrasound Med 1987; 6: 203-207. (Pubitemid 17055175)
16. Tegnander E, Eik-Nes SH, Linker DT,. Incorporating the four-chamber view of the fetal heart into the second-trimester routine fetal examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 24-28.
17. Szabo TL,. Array beamforming. In Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging: Inside Out, Szabo TL, (ed). Elsevier Academic Press: London, 2004; 190-196.
18. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, 2010; [Accessed 17 June 2010].
19. Koenker R,. quantreg: Quantile Regression. R package version 4.44: Vienna, 2009; [Accessed 15 October 2010].
20. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-96: Vienna, 2009; [Accessed 15 October 2010].
21. Robinson HP,. Sonar measurement of fetal crown-rump length as means of assessing maturity in first trimester of pregnancy. Br Med J 1973; 4: 28-31.
22. Koster MP, Van Leeuwen-Spruijt M, Wortelboer EJ, Stoutenbeek P, Elvers LH, Loeber JG, Visser GH, Schielen PC,. Lack of standardization in determining gestational age for prenatal screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 607-611.
23. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo C, Hernandez-Andrade E, Johnsen SL, Kalache K, Leung KY, Malinger G, Munoz H, Prefumo F, Toi A, Lee W,; ISUOG Clinical Standards Committee. Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 116-126.
24. Song TK, Park SB,. A new digital phased array system for dynamic focusing and steering with reduced sampling rate. Ultrason Imaging 1990; 12: 1-16. (Pubitemid 20156724)
25. Steinberg BD,. Digital beamforming in ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 1992; 39: 716-721.
26. Holm S,. Medical ultrasound transducers and beamforming. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Acoustics. Trondheim, Norway, June 1995; 339-342.
27. Sahota DS, Kagan KO, Lau TK, Leung TY, Nicolaides KH,. Customized birth weight: coefficients and validation of models in a UK population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 884-889.
28. Saltvedt S, Almstrom H, Kublickas M, Reilly M, Valentin L, Grunewald C,. Ultrasound dating at 12-14 or 15-20 weeks of gestation? A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in a population of in-vitro fertilized pregnancies randomized to early or late dating scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 42-50. (Pubitemid 38932246)
29. Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eggebø TM, Eik-Nes SH,. A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207-213.
30. Ville Y,. 'Ceci n'est pas une Èchographie': a plea for quality assessment in prenatal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 1-5. (Pubitemid 351211922)