HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2383050636v1 238/3/988    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Benacerraf, B. R. Articles by Bromley, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Benacerraf, B. R. Articles by Bromley, B.

Three-dimensional US of the Fetus: Volume Imaging¹

¹ From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (B.R.B., T.D.S., B.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (B.R.B., T.D.S., B.B.); and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (B.R.B., T.D.S., B.B.). Received April 18, 2005; revision requested June 15; revision received June 29; accepted July 20; final version accepted August 23. Address correspondence to B.R.B., Diagnostic Ultrasound Associates, 333 Longwood Ave, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02115. (e-mail: bbsono{at}aol.com).

Purpose: To retrospectively compare the rapidity, efficiency, and accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) ultrasonography (US) for complete anatomic survey in fetuses at 17–21 weeks of gestation.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained, informed consent was waived, and the study was HIPAA compliant. Fifty consecutive women undergoing fetal anatomic survey at 17–21 weeks of gestation formed the study cohort. After standard 2D US was performed by one of eight sonographers, the same sonographer also obtained five 3D volumes to encompass the entire fetal anatomy. Three physicians interpreting the scans independently evaluated the completeness of the examination and time needed to read the scans, comparing the standard 2D method with the 3D volume reconstruction technique. The paired t test was used to compare biparietal diameter (BPD), femur length, and performance times between the 3D measurements and the 2D measurement. The t test was used to compare fetal anatomy according to volume angle. Differences were significant when P < .05.

Results: Mean time to perform 2D US was 19.6 minutes per examination, whereas mean time to perform complete 3D volume acquisition was 1.8 minutes. Mean times needed to interpret 3D images and measure the BPD and femur were 5.53, 4.79, and 5.34 minutes for the three interpreting physicians. Compared with complete fetal surveys performed with 2D US, individual fetal anatomic landmarks (except for fetal arms and cavum septum pellucidum) were identified more than 94% of the time by using 3D US. Grouping anatomic views by region, the heart, head, extremities, and abdominal views were completely seen in 88%, 90%, 90%, and 95% of patients, respectively. No significant difference was seen between the three physicians regarding completeness of the 3D examinations (P = .7). One fetus had multiple anomalies, with 3D volumes identified as abnormal by all three physicians. Overall, 74% of 3D BPD measurements were within 1 mm of the 2D measurements, and 64% of 3D femur measurements were within 1 mm of the 2D measurements.

Conclusion: The standard fetal anatomic survey can be performed in less than 2 minutes with 3D volume US, and the volumes can be interpreted in 6–7 minutes, compared with a mean of 19.6 minutes to perform standard 2D US.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. T. Merce, M. J. Barco, and S. Bau Three-Dimensional Volume Sonographic Study of Fetal Anatomy: Intraobserver Reproducibility and Effect of Examiner Experience J. Ultrasound Med., July 1, 2008; 27(7): 1053 - 1063. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S T Elliott Volume ultrasound: the next big thing? Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2008; 81(961): 8 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Jandzinski, E. van Wijngaarden, V. Dogra, S. G. Fisher, A. Conde, and D. Rubens Renal Sonography With 2-Dimensional Versus Cine Organ Imaging: Preliminary Results J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2007; 26(5): 635 - 644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hagel and S. G. Bicknell Impact of 3D Sonography on Workroom Time Efficiency Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 966 - 969. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. D. Kalache, C. Bamberg, H. Proquitte, N. Sarioglu, H. Lebek, and T. Esser Three-dimensional multi-slice view: new prospects for evaluation of congenital anomalies in the fetus. J. Ultrasound Med., August 1, 2006; 25(8): 1041 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. R. Benacerraf Tomographic Sonography of the Fetus: Is It Accurate Enough to be a Frontline Screen for Fetal Malformation? J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2006; 25(6): 687 - 689. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. F. Goncalves, J. K. Nien, J. Espinoza, J. P. Kusanovic, W. Lee, B. Swope, E. Soto, M. C. Treadwell, and R. Romero What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography? J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2006; 25(6): 691 - 699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]