Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Alan Daneman
- Foreword by Phyllis A. Dennery
- Foreword by Avroy A. Fanaroff
- Preface
- 1 Introduction to principles of the radiological investigation of the neonate
- 2 Evidence-based use of diagnostic imaging: reliability and validity
- 3 The chest, page 11 to 40
- The chest, page 41 to 69
- 4 Neonatal congenital heart disease
- 5 Special considerations for neonatal ECMO
- 6 The central nervous system
- 7 The gastrointestinal tract
- 8 The kidney
- 9 Some principles of in utero and post-natal formation of the skeleton
- 10 Metabolic diseases
- 11 Catheters and tubes
- 12 Routine prenatal screening during pregnancy
- 13 Antenatal diagnosis of selected defects
- Index
- References
12 - Routine prenatal screening during pregnancy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Alan Daneman
- Foreword by Phyllis A. Dennery
- Foreword by Avroy A. Fanaroff
- Preface
- 1 Introduction to principles of the radiological investigation of the neonate
- 2 Evidence-based use of diagnostic imaging: reliability and validity
- 3 The chest, page 11 to 40
- The chest, page 41 to 69
- 4 Neonatal congenital heart disease
- 5 Special considerations for neonatal ECMO
- 6 The central nervous system
- 7 The gastrointestinal tract
- 8 The kidney
- 9 Some principles of in utero and post-natal formation of the skeleton
- 10 Metabolic diseases
- 11 Catheters and tubes
- 12 Routine prenatal screening during pregnancy
- 13 Antenatal diagnosis of selected defects
- Index
- References
Summary
Currently pregnant women in the industrialized parts of the world expect to have an ultrasound of the fetus. There is no clear evidence that ultrasound will decrease perinatal morbidity or mortality in low-risk women [1]. However, the mother's perception is that she will find out if the fetus is “normal” and what the gender is. Often she will bring a partner and/or family members.
Universal ultrasound imaging of all pregnancies has not been officially endorsed, particularly in lowrisk women; however 60–70% of women develop a medical indication resulting in a prenatal ultrasound [2]. Several bodies (the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine [AIUM], the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology [ACOG], and the American College of Radiology [ACR]) agree on the indications for ultrasound in pregnancy and the minimum requirement of images, regardless of who performs the studies: radiologists or obstetricians.
Prenatal ultrasound may improve specific pregnancy outcomes indirectly. For example, ultrasound may: (1) identify congenital anomalies to allow for the option of termination or appropriate delivery or management at specialized centers; (2) accurately date the gestation in case of preterm delivery; (3) best recognize multiple gestations, as well as significant growth disturbances.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Imaging of the Newborn , pp. 220 - 234Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
1. , , , et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(12):821–7.Google Scholar
3. , , , , . Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 1992; 304(6831):867–9.Google Scholar
4. , , , , . First-trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7(3):216–26.Google Scholar
5. (2010) Nuchal Translucency. Available at: www.fetalmedicineusa.com/documents/NuchalTranslucency.pdf (accessed March 27, 2011).
6. . First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29(4):190–4.Google Scholar
7. , , , et al. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess 2003; 7(11):1–77.Google Scholar
8. , , , et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(19):2001–11.Google Scholar
9. , , , , . Absence of nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11–14 weeks of gestation: an observational study. Lancet 2001; 358(9294):1665–7.Google Scholar
10. , , , , . The lambda sign at 10–14 weeks of gestation as a predictor of chorionicity in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7(6):421–3.Google Scholar
11. (2007) AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations. Available at: www.aium.org/publications/guidelines/obstetric. pdf (accessed March 21, 2010).
12. , , . The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181(2):446–54.Google Scholar
13. , , , , . Second-trimester ultrasound to detect fetuses with Down syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001; 285(8):1044–55.Google Scholar
14. , . Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the detection of neural tube and ventral wall defects in a high-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94(4):562–6.Google Scholar
15. , , , et al. Association of isolated short femur in the mid-trimester fetus with perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31(5):512–16.Google Scholar
16. (2007) AIUM Official Statement: Prudent use in Obstetrics. Available at: www.aium.org/publications/viewStatement.aspx?id=2 (accessed July 16, 2010).
17. , , , et al. How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age?Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178(4):678–87.Google Scholar
18. , , , . Computer assisted analysis of fetal age in the third trimester using multiple fetal growth parameters. J Clin Ultrasound 1983; 11(6):313–16.Google Scholar
19. , , . How accurate is second trimester fetal dating?J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10(10):557–61.Google Scholar
20. , , . The ultrasonic measurement of fetal crown-rump length as a method of assessing gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976; 83(6):417–21.Google Scholar
21. . ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113(2 Pt. 1):451–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. , , , , . Is sonographic assessment of fetal weight influenced by formula selection?J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28(8):1019–24.Google Scholar
23. , , . Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: CD007529. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007529. pub2.Google Scholar
24. , . Doppler vascular changes in intrauterine growth restriction. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32(3):182–9.Google Scholar
25. . A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003; 110(1):27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. (2010) Clinical Trials Database: TRUFFLE study ((Trial of umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE): a multicentre randomised study)). www.bapm.org/trials/view-trial.php?RecordID=34 (accessed March 21, 2010).
27. , , , et al. Birth weight prediction by three-dimensional ultrasonography: fractional limb volume. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20(12):1283–92.Google Scholar