Advertisement

Sicherheitsaspekte

  • K. T. M. Schneider
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Kapitel werden die Sicherheitsaspekte bei der Anwendung der Dopplersonographie beleuchtet. Dazu werden die Messparameter für die Ultraschallexposition erläutert, zu denen der Schalldruck, Schallwellengeschwindigkeit, Wellenlänge, Abschwächung der Schallausbreitung, Schallfenster, „Pulsed-Mode“ sowie Ausgangsleistung und Intensität gehören. Bei der Messung von Bioeffekten werden Intensitätsgrößen, thermische und mechanische Messgrößen berücksichtigt. Daran schließt sich die Darstellung des akustischen Outputs moderner Ultraschallverfahren an. Danach folgt die Darstellung der Bioeffekte und möglichen Auswirkungen auf den Feten. Abschließend werden Beeinträchtigung der fetalen Entwicklung nach Ultraschallexposition diskutiert und Sicherheitsempfehlungen gegeben.

Literatur

  1. Abramowicz JS, Kossoff G, Marsal K, Ter Haar G. (2003) Safety Statement, 2000 (reconfirmed 2003) International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramowicz JS, Barnett SB, Duck FA, Edmonds PD, Hynynen KH, Ziskin MC (2008) Fetal thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound. 27:541–59Google Scholar
  3. AIUM Statement. (2007) Prudent use in obstetrics. Available at: http://www.aium-org/publications/viewStatement.aspx?id=33. Accessed May 17, 2010
  4. FDA. Fetal Keepsake videos (2009) Available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PatientAlerts/ncm064756.htm. Accessed May 17, 2010
  5. Barnett SB, Kossoff G (1998) Can diagnostic ultrasound heat tissue and cause biological effects? In: Barnett SB, Kossoff G (eds) Safety of diagnostic ultrasound. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York London, pp 27‒38Google Scholar
  6. Barnett SB, Ter Haar GR, Ziskin MC, Rott HD, Duck FA, Maeda K (2000) International recommendations and guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine. Ultrasound Med Biol. 26(3):355–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett SB, Maulik D;International Perinatal Doppler Society (2001) Guidelines and recommendations for safe use of Doppler ultrasound in perinatal applications. J Matern Fetal Med. 10(2):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnett SB (2001) Intracranial temperature elevation from diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 27:883–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bly S, Van den Hof MC (2005) Diagnostic Imaging Committee, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada: Obstetric ultrasound biological effects and safety. Obstet Gynaecol Can. 27(6):572–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Church CC, Miller MW (2007) Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostik ultrasound. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 93:331–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duck FA, Martin K (1992) Exposure values for medical devices. In: Ziskin M, Lewin P (eds) Ultrasonic exposimetry. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 315‒344Google Scholar
  12. Duck FA, Henderson J (1998) Acoustic output of modern ultrasound equipment: is it increasing? In: Barnett SB, Kossoff G (eds) Safety of diagnostic ultrasound. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York London, pp 15‒25Google Scholar
  13. Duck FA (2008) Hazards, risks and safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Med Eng Phys. 30:1338–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EFSUMB (1998) Newsletter. EFSUMB 11:8‒14Google Scholar
  15. FDA (1992) Guide for measuring and reporting acoustic output of diagnostic ultrasound. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Techn Bull 1992Google Scholar
  16. Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E, Mazor M. (2002) Ultrasound in obstetrics: a review of safety. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 101(1):15–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huch R, Schneider KTM, Rott HD (1993) Sicherheitsaspekte der Ultraschall- und Ultraschalldoppler-Sonographie in der Schwangerschaft. Frauenarzt 34:261‒263Google Scholar
  18. Merrit CRB, Kremkau FW, Hobbins JC (1992) Diagnostic ultrasound: bioeffects and safety. Ultraound Obstet Gynecol 2:366‒37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller DL (2008) Safety Assurance in Obstetrical Ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 29: 156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore RM, Diamond EL, Cavalieri RL (1988) The relationship of birth weight and intrauterine diagnostic ultrasound exposure. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 71(4):513–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Newnham JP (1998) Studies of ultrasound safety in humans: clinical benefit vs. risk. In: Barnett SB, Kossoff G (eds) Safety of diagnostic ultrasound. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York London, pp 99‒112Google Scholar
  22. Nemescu D, Berescu A, Rotariu C (2015) Variation of safety indices during in the learning curve for color Doppler assessment of the fetal heart at 11+0 to 13+6 weeks’ gestation. Med Ultrason. 17(4):464–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Nemescu D, Berescu A, Onofriescu M, Navolan DB, Rotariu C. (2015) Safety Indices during Fetal Echocardiography at the Time of First-Trimester Scan Are Machine Dependent. PLoS One 27;10(5).Google Scholar
  24. Nyborg WL. (2001) Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part II: general review. Ultrasound Med Biol 27(3): 301–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piscaglia F, Tewelde AG, Righini R, Gianstefani A, Calliada F, Bolondi L. (2009) Knowledge of the bio-effects of ultrasound among physicians performing clinical ultrasonography: Results of a survey conducted by the Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB). J Ultrasound. 12(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rott HD (1997) Zur Epidemiologie diagnostischer pränataler Ultraschallexposition. Hautnah Gynäkol Geburtshilfe 5:212‒214Google Scholar
  27. Rott HD (1998) EFSUMB: Watchdog Berichte 1997. Ultraschall Med 19:47‒50Google Scholar
  28. Ter Haar G. (2010) Ultrasound bioeffects and safety. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 224:363–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salvesen KA, Lees C (2009) Ultrasound is not unsound, but safety is an issue. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:512–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider KTM, Lippert A (1991) Der derzeitige Stand der Dopplersonographie. Umfrage an 253 Kliniken in West- und Ostdeutschland, der Schweiz und Österreich. Frauenarzt 33:873‒874Google Scholar
  31. Stratmeyer ME, Greenleaf JF, Dalecki D, Salvesen KA (2008) Fetal ultrasound: mechanical effects. J Ultrasound Med. 27:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone P, Ross I, Pringle K, Flower J (1992) Tissue heating effect of pulsed Doppler ultrasound in the live fetal lamb brain. Fetal Diagn Ther 7:26‒30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tarantal AF (1998) Effects of ultrasound exposure on fetal development in animal models. In: Barnett SB, Kossoff G (eds) Safety of diagnostic ultrasound. The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York London, pp 39‒51Google Scholar
  34. Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S, Ekklund G, Fall O, Linderberg S, Sjodin Y (1988) Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2:585‒588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams A (1991) A critical evaluation of bioeffect reports and epidemiological surveys. In: Docker M, Duck F (eds) The safe use of diagnostic ultrasound. British Institute of Radiology, London, pp 30‒32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. T. M. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.emerit. Leiter der Abteilung fur Perinatalmedizin der TU MunchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations