No. 359-Obstetric Ultrasound Biological Effects and Safety

The uterocervical angle-cervical length ratio: A promising predictor of preterm birth?

OBJECTIVE

To predict spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) (labor before 37 weeks of pregnancy) in low-risk singleton pregnancies during the second trimester, using ultrasound markers: uterocervical angle (UCA) and cervical length (CL).

METHODS

In a prospective observational cohort study, we followed primigravid women with singleton pregnancies without known risk factors for sPTB from 16+0-23+6 weeks of pregnancy until birth. Transvaginal ultrasonography on admission revealed the UCA and CL, and maternal history was obtained from submitted patient profiles. Logistic regression models disclosed significant predictive variables, and receiver operating curves (ROCs) demonstrated optimal cut-offs and test accuracy indices. Predictive functions of variables were compared using positive and negative likelihood ratios.

RESULTS

In a sample of 357 participants, 41 (11.5%) experienced sPTB. UCA and CL were significantly associated with sPTB when adjusting for other variables (adjusted odds ratio: UCA 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.07 and CL 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.90). Optimal cut-offs were estimated to be 106° and 33 mm for UCA and CL, respectively. We devised the novel index UCA/CL with an area under the ROC of 0.781 (95% CI 0.734-0.823), cut-off = 3.09°/mm, and improved likelihood ratios (positive: 3.18, 2.47, and 4.22; negative: 0.63, 0.52, and 0.51 for UCA, CL, and UCA/CL, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The second-trimester UCA/CL was found to be a promising index to predict sPTB in low-risk singleton pregnancies. Further multicenter studies may generalize this conclusion to other gestational ages or risk groups and make it more comprehensive by considering other risk factors.

Liability, risks, and recommendations for ultrasound use in the diagnosis of obstetrics diseases

This literature review will summarize the liability issues, risks, and ultrasound recommendations for diagnosing obstetrics diseases. One liability issue is related to misdiagnosis or failure to detect abnormalities during an ultrasound examination. Ultrasound images can be subjective interpretations, and errors may occur due to factors such as operator skill, equipment limitations, or fetal positioning. Another liability concern is related to the potential adverse effects of ultrasound exposure on both the mother and fetus. While extensive research has shown that diagnostic ultrasound is generally safe when used appropriately, there are still uncertainties regarding long-term effects. Some studies suggest a possible association between prolonged or excessive exposure to ultrasound waves and adverse outcomes such as low birth weight, developmental delays, or hearing impairment. Additionally, obtaining informed consent from patients is crucial in mitigating liability risks. Patients should be informed about the purpose of the ultrasound examination, its benefits, limitations, potential risks (even if minimal), and any alternative diagnostic options available. This ensures that patients know the procedure and can make informed decisions about their healthcare. Proper documentation helps establish a clear record of the care provided and can serve as evidence in any legal disputes.

Use and misuse of ultrasound in obstetrics with reference to developing countries

Maternal and neonatal health is one of the main global health challenges. Every day, approximately 800 women and 7,000 newborns die due to complications during pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal period. The leading causes of maternal death in sub-Saharan Africa are obstetric hemorrhage (28.8%), hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (22.1%), non-obstetric complications (18.8%), and pregnancy-related infections (11.5%). Diagnostic ultrasound examinations can be used in a variety of specific circumstances during pregnancy. Because adverse outcomes may also arise in low-risk pregnancies, it is assumed that routine ultrasound in all pregnancies will enable earlier detection and improved management of pregnancy complications. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 1997 that 50% of developing countries had no access to ultrasound imaging, and available equipment was outdated or broken. Unfortunately, besides all the exceptional benefits of ultrasound in obstetrics, its inappropriate use and abuse are reported. Using ultrasound to view, take a picture, or determine the sex of a fetus without a medical indication can be considered ethically unjustifiable. Ultrasound assessment when indicated should be every woman's right in the new era. However, it is still only a privilege in some parts of the world. Investment in both equipment and human resources has been clearly shown to be cost-effective and should be an obligatory step in the improvement of health care. Well-developed health systems should guide developing countries, creating principles for the organization of the health system with an accent on the correct, legal, and ethical use of diagnostic ultrasound in pregnancy to avoid its misuse. The aim of the article is to present the importance of correct and appropriate use of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology with reference to developing countries.

Middle-East obgyn graduate education (MOGGE) foundation practice guidelines: diagnostic approach to pregnancy of unknown location: practice guideline no. 03-O-21

Background

Pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) is a term used to describe failure of visualization of intrauterine or extrauterine gestational sac in a woman with a positive pregnancy test.

Body of the abstract

Ectopic pregnancy (EP) accounts for 1–2 % of all pregnancies. EP contributes to maternal mortality of a known cause by 4% in developed countries. However, case fatality rate may be 10 times higher in low-resource countries. This may be attributed to delayed diagnosis and lack of resources. PUL is a temporary term that may eventually lead to diagnosis of viable intrauterine pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or more seriously, EP.

Conclusion

This guideline appraises current evidence on assessment of PUL and early diagnosis of EP particularly in low-resource settings.

Exploring the use of knobology for image optimisation in final year sonography students

Introduction

Image optimisation is essential for acquisition of quality images in ultrasound and critical to the diagnostic ability of the examination. These skills are taught to sonography students early in their education, but research has found that retention of non-rehearsed knowledge decreases significantly after a year. The aim of this study was to determine which optimisation tools (knobology) final year sonography students use, how often and why they chose to adjust parameters and assess barriers to optimisation of knobology tools.

Methods

A prospective study using data from an anonymous online survey of 34 final year sonography students.

Results

Survey results showed that 19/34 (55%) of students "frequently" optimise all Doppler settings and 23/34 (67%) of students "frequently" optimise basic parameter settings (depth, focus, time gain compensation). Time constraints (24/34 (70%)) and loss of gained knowledge of sonography principles and instrumentation (17/34 (50%)) were the major barriers to the use of knobology. The majority 28/34 (82%) believed they would benefit from further training.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that although most students are optimising settings to improve image quality, sonography principles and instrumentation knowledge loss and time constraints prevent students from maximising machine capabilities. This study supports the need for further training prior to final year clinical placement.

No. 375-Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of First Trimester Ultrasound

OBJECTIVE

This guideline reviews the clinical indications for first trimester ultrasound.

OUTCOME

Proven clinical benefit has been reported from first trimester ultrasound.

EVIDENCE

A Medline search and bibliography reviews in relevant literature provided the evidence.

VALUES

Content and recommendations were reviewed by the principal authors and the Diagnostic Imaging Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Levels of evidence were judged as outlined by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

RECOMMENDATIONS