Safety assurance in obstetrical ultrasound.

Safety assurance for diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics began with a tacit assumption of safety allowed by a federal law enacted in 1976 for then-existing medical ultrasound equipment. The implementation of the 510(k) pre-market-approval process for diagnostic ultrasound resulted in the establishment of guideline upper limits for several examination categories in 1985. The obstetrical category has undergone substantial evolution from initial limits (ie, 46 mW/cm2 spatial peak temporal average [SPTA] intensity) set in 1985. Thermal and mechanical exposure indices, which are displayed onscreen according to an Output Display Standard, were developed for safety assurance with relaxed upper limits. In 1992, with the adoption of the Output Display Standard, the allowable output for obstetrical ultrasound was increased in terms of both the average exposure (eg, to a possible 720 mW/cm2 SPTA intensity) and the peak exposure (via the Mechanical Index). There has been little or no subsequent research with the modern obstetrical ultrasound machines to systematically assess potential risks to the fetus using either relevant animal models of obstetrical exposure or human epidemiology studies. The assurance of safety for obstetrical ultrasound therefore is supported by three ongoing means: (1) review of a substantial but uncoordinated bioeffect research literature; (2) the theoretical evaluation of diagnostic ultrasound exposure in terms of thermal and nonthermal mechanisms for bioeffects; and (3) the skill and knowledge of professional sonographers. At this time, there is no specific reason to suspect that there is any significant health risk to the fetus or mother from exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics. This assurance of safety supports the prudent use of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics by trained professionals for any medically indicated examination.

[1]  George Kossoff,et al.  An ultrasonic echoscope for visualizing the pregnant uterus , 1965 .

[2]  G. Haar,et al.  Biological effects of ultrasound: mechanisms and clinical implications , 1985 .

[3]  V. Ciaravino Biological Effects of Ultrasound: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications(NCRP Report No. 74) , 1986 .

[4]  M. Ziskin,et al.  Bioeffects considerations for the safety of diagnostic ultrasound. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Bioeffects Committee. , 1988, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[5]  A. Hendrickx,et al.  Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): I. Neonatal/infant observations. , 1989, Teratology.

[6]  G. Wieneke,et al.  Transcranial pulsed Doppler measurements of blood velocity in the middle cerebral artery: reference values at rest and during hyperventilation in healthy volunteers in relation to age and sex. , 1989, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[7]  R. Apfel,et al.  Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short-pulse, low-duty cycle diagnostic ultrasound. , 1991, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[8]  Morton W. Miller,et al.  Modest enhancement of ultrasound-induced mutations in V79 cells in vitro. , 1992, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[9]  R. M. Thomas,et al.  Comet assay reveals DNA strand breaks induced by ultrasonic cavitation in vitro. , 1995, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[10]  Medical Ultrasound Safety , 1999 .

[11]  G. Harris,et al.  Theoretical study of steady-state temperature rise within the eye due to ultrasound insonation , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[12]  M. Ziskin,et al.  International recommendations and guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine. , 2000, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[13]  Jacob Darwin Hamblin,et al.  Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century , 2000 .

[14]  J B Fowlkes,et al.  Mechanical bioeffects from diagnostic ultrasound: AIUM consensus statements. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. , 2000, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[15]  W L Nyborg,et al.  Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part I: personal histories. , 2000, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[16]  M Fatemi,et al.  Fetal stimulation by pulsed diagnostic ultrasound. , 2001, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[17]  S. Barnett Routine ultrasound scanning in first trimester: what are the risks? , 2002, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[18]  Francis A Duck,et al.  Acoustic Output Upper Limits Proposition , 2002, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[19]  W L Nyborg,et al.  Hyperthermic teratogenicity, thermal dose and diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy: implications of new standards on tissue heating , 2002, International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group.

[20]  Morton W. Miller,et al.  Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound: II. Criteria based on all known mechanisms , 2002 .

[21]  W L Nyborg,et al.  Safety of medical diagnostic ultrasound. , 2002, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[22]  C. Rodgers Questions about prenatal ultrasound and the alarming increase in autism. , 2006, Midwifery today with international midwife.

[23]  Mark E. Schafer,et al.  From the Cover : Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice , 2006 .

[24]  Division on Earth Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 , 2006 .

[25]  L. Claes,et al.  The enhancement of bone regeneration by ultrasound. , 2007, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[26]  Morton W. Miller,et al.  Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. , 2007, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[27]  T. Whittingham WFUMB Safety Symposium on Echo-Contrast Agents: exposure from diagnostic ultrasound equipment relating to cavitation risk. , 2007, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[28]  J. Abramowicz,et al.  Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves: is there a risk? , 2007, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[29]  K. Salvesen Epidemiological prenatal ultrasound studies. , 2007, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[30]  Alastair McKinlay The ultrasonic boom—Focus on health and safety , 2007 .

[31]  L. Frizzell,et al.  American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound , 2008, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.