Reassessment of teratogenic risk from antenatal ultrasound
Science has shown that risk of cavitation and hyperthermia following prenatal ultrasound exposure is relatively negligible provided intensity, frequency, duration of exposure, and total numbers of exposures are safely limited. However, noncavitational mechanisms have been poorly studied and occur within what are currently considered “safe” levels of exposure. To date, the teratogenic capacity of noncavitational effectors are largely unknown, although studies have shown that different forms of ultrasound-induced hydraulic forces and pressures can alter membrane fluidity, proliferation, and expression of inflammatory and repair markers. Loose regulations, poor end user training, and unreliable ultrasound equipment may also increase the likelihood of cavitation and hyperthermia during prenatal exposure with prolonged durations and increased intensities. The literature suggests a need for tighter regulations on the use of ultrasound and further studies into its teratogenicity.
KeywordsCavitation Microstreaming Sonoporation Teratogens Ultrasonography Prenatal
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Connolly C., Pond J., The possibility of harmful effects in using ultrasound for medical diagnosis, Biomed. Eng., 1967, 2, 112–115Google Scholar
- Křížek V., Kolominsky J., Tepelné účinky ultrazvuku ve tkánäch, Čas. Lék. Čes., 1951, 90, 482–486Google Scholar
- Frizzell L.A., Biological effects of acoustic cavitation, In: Suslick K.S. (Ed.), Ultrasound: its chemical, physical and biological effects, VCH, New York, 1988, 287–303Google Scholar
- Kremkau F.W., Bioeffects and safety, In: Diagnostic ultrasound: principles, instrumentation and exercises, 2nd ed., Grune and Straton, New York, 1984, 166–277Google Scholar
- Nyborg W.L., Carson P.L., Miller D.L., Miller M.W., Ziskin M.C., Carstensen E.L., et al., Biological effects of ultrasound: mechanisms and clinical Implications, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Bethesda, 1983Google Scholar
- National Institutes of Health Consensus Committee, Diagnostic ultrasound imaging in pregnancy, 1984, NIH Pub. No. 84-667Google Scholar
- Counce S.J., Selman G.G., The effects of ultrasonic treatment on embryonic development of Drosophila melanogaster, J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol., 1955, 3, 121–141Google Scholar
- Pébay A., Peshavariya H., Wong R.C.B., Dusting G.J., Non-classical signalling mechanisms in stem cells, In: Atwood C.S. (Ed.), Embryonic stem cells: the hormonal regulation of pluripotency and embryogenesis, Intech, ijeka, 2011, 317–336Google Scholar
- American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations, J. Ultrasound Med., 2010, 29, 157–166Google Scholar
- Washington State Health Care Authority, Ultrasonography (ultrasound) in pregnancy: health technology assessment, 2010, taken on 08/28/2012 from http://www.hta.hca.wa.gov/documents/final_report_ultrasound.pdf Google Scholar
- Alberta Clinical Practice Guidelines Working Group for Prenatal Ultrasound, Guideline for the use of prenatal ultrasound: First trimester, Alberta Medical Association, Edmonton, 1998Google Scholar
- Williams E.L., Casanova M.F., Prenatal ultrasound: it’s not just a photograph, Autism Sci. Dig., 2011, 1, 58–60Google Scholar