Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Medical Imaging
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
file format pdf download PDF
file format text download EPUB
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Background

Patient safety is paramount in ultrasound procedures, particularly in obstetric ultrasounds involving both the mother and fetus. The thermal and mechanical indices (TI and MI) serve as crucial indicators of the acoustic output during ultrasound. Clinicians and specialists must know these indices and ensure they are within safe ranges. This study aimed to assess the parameters of acoustic output power employed in obstetric ultrasound (thermal and mechanical index).

Methodology

A cross-sectional observational study conducted at Maternity and Children's Hospital in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, the data was collected from obstetric scanning of 411 pregnant females using a data collection sheet including gravida and women's age, gestational age, scan mode, scan time, and thermal and mechanical index (TI and MI) values.

Results

The study found that there were significant differences in safety indices measurement between different modes; in Pulsed Doppler, mean Thermal Index Bone (TIb) had the highest value (1.60±0.40), and the Mechanical Index (MI) was the lowest (0.68±0.33). There were insignificant differences in safety indices values in different modes in different trimesters. The thermal indices of soft tissue and bony structure (TIs and TIb) of brightness mode (B-mode) were constant in all trimesters, but the MI in the first trimester was lower than in the other trimesters.

Conclusion

This study concluded that the mean values of thermal indices used in B mode , M mode and Color Doppler lie within the Recommended limit of (BMUS) British Medical Ultrasound Society (below 0.7) except for Pulsed Doppler it was exceed 1.5. While for MI in different ultrasound modes except in pulsed Doppler the average values is higher than 0.7 which was recommended by (BMUS) British Medical Ultrasound Society and lower than 1.9 which was the maximum threshold approved by FDA (Food and drug Administration). The average scanning time is low (6.4 minute) reflect the safe use of ultrasound in obstetrics in this study.

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publisher.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514
2024-06-24
2025-01-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmir/20/1/CMIR-20-E15734056312545.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. HoustonL.E. OdiboA.O. MaconesG.A. The safety of obstetrical ultrasound: A review.Prenat. Diagn.200929131204121210.1002/pd.239219899071
     [Google Scholar]
  2. How to interpret the ultrasound output display standard for diagnostic ultrasound devices: Version 3.J. Ultrasound Med.201938123101310510.1002/jum.1515931736131
     [Google Scholar]
  3. NelsonT.R. FowlkesJ.B. AbramowiczJ.S. ChurchC.C. Ultrasound biosafety considerations for the practicing sonographer and sonologist.J. Ultrasound Med.200928213915010.7863/jum.2009.28.2.13919168764
     [Google Scholar]
  4. SheinerE. Shoham-VardiI. PombarX. HusseyM.J. StrassnerH.T. AbramowiczJ.S. An increased thermal index can be achieved when performing Doppler studies in obstetric sonography.J. Ultrasound Med.2007261717610.7863/jum.2007.26.1.7117182711
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ter HaarG. The new British Medical Ultrasound Society Guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound equipment.Ultrasound2010182505110.1258/ult.2010.100007
     [Google Scholar]
  6. AbramowiczJ.S. SheinerE. Ultrasound bioeffects and safety: What the practitioner should know.Sonography in Obstetrics & Gynecology: Principles and Practice7th edMcGraw Hill Professional2010
     [Google Scholar]
  7. NgK.H. International guidelines and regulations for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine.J. Med. Ultrasound20021015910.1016/S0929‑6441(09)60017‑5
     [Google Scholar]
  8. NewnhamJ.P. EvansS.F. MichaelC.A. StanleyF.J. LandauL.I. Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial.Lancet1993342887688789110.1016/0140‑6736(93)91944‑H8105165
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CampbellJ.D. ElfordR.W. BrantR.F. Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech.Obstet. Gynecol. Surv.199449746046110.1097/00006254‑199407000‑00009
     [Google Scholar]
  10. StarkC.R. OrleansM. HaverkampA.D. MurphyJ. Short- and long-term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero.Obstet. Anesthes. Dig.19844411910.1097/00132582‑198412000‑000046198611
     [Google Scholar]
  11. KielerH. AxelssonO. HaglundB. NilssonS. SalvesenK.Å. Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children’s subsequent handedness.Early Hum. Dev.199850223324510.1016/S0378‑3782(97)00097‑29483394
     [Google Scholar]
  12. SalvesenK. LeesC. AbramowiczJ. BrezinkaC. Ter HaarG. MaršálK. Board of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) ISUOG statement on the safe use of Doppler in the 11 to 13 +6‐week fetal ultrasound examination.Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.201137662862810.1002/uog.902621618313
     [Google Scholar]
  13. SheinerE. FreemanJ. AbramowiczJ.S. Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine obstetric ultrasound examinations.J. Ultrasound Med.200524121665167010.7863/jum.2005.24.12.166516301723
     [Google Scholar]
  14. SheinerE. HackmonR. Shoham-VardiI. PombarX. HusseyM.J. StrassnerH.T. AbramowiczJ.S. A comparison between acoustic output indices in 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound in obstetrics.Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.200729332632810.1002/uog.393317265534
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kamal HagiS. Assessment of safety and exposure conditions during obstetric ultrasound at king abulaziz university hospital.J. Am. Sci.2012810287290
     [Google Scholar]
  16. NemescuD BerescuA OnofriescuM NavolanDB RotariuC Safety indices during fetal echocardiography at the time of first-trimester scan are machine dependent.PLOS ONE2015105e012757010.1371/journal.pone.0127570
     [Google Scholar]
  17. BarnettS.B. MaulikD. International Perinatal Doppler Society Guidelines and recommendations for safe use of Doppler ultrasound in perinatal applications.J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med.2001102758410.1080/jmf.10.2.75.8411392597
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MillerD.L. Safety assurance in obstetrical ultrasound.Semin. Ultrasound CT MR200829215616410.1053/j.sult.2007.12.00318450141
     [Google Scholar]
  19. HelmyS. BaderY. KochM. TiringerD. KollmannC. Measurement of thermal effects of doppler ultrasound: An in vitro study.PLoS One2015108e013571710.1371/journal.pone.013571726302465
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound equipment.BMUS Bulletin200083303310.1177/1742271X0000800311
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MaedaK. Safety of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology.Donald School Textbook of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd2011110.5005/jp/books/11213_1
     [Google Scholar]
  22. The safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology.DSJUOG20126331331710.5005/jp‑journals‑10009‑1254
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SandeR.K. MatreK. EideG.E. KiserudT. The effects of reducing the thermal index for bone from 1.0 to 0.5 and 0.1 on common obstetric pulsed wave Doppler measurements in the second half of pregnancy.Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.201392779079610.1111/aogs.1211423418900
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Sheiner(F) E. Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine second trimester obstetrical ultrasound.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.20051936S15710.1016/j.ajog.2005.10.628
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514
Loading
Assessment of Thermal and Mechanical Indices as Acoustic Output Parameters Used in Obstetric Ultrasound in Saudi Arabia
Curr. Med. Imaging 20, e15734056312545 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056312545240612095514
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): B-mode; Color doppler; M-mode; Mechanical index (MI); Pulsed doppler; Thermal index bone (TIb)

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test