Advertisement

Antenatal Care pp 105-119 | Cite as

Ultrasound — the midwife’s role

  • Jean Proud
Chapter
Part of the Midwifery Practice book series (MIPRA)

Abstract

Ultrasound scanning of the pregnant uterus is considered by many to have become an important part of antenatal care. Most women expect it to be performed, and many feel deprived if it is not offered. The policy of many obstetricians is to ‘scan’ women routinely between 18 and 20 weeks gestation when the fetus is easily visualised. The uterus is then an abdominal organ and the fetus is sufficiently large for all the major systems to be examined for any defects. It is sufficiently early in the pregnancy to give an accurate estimation of gestational age and not too late to eliminate the possiblity of multiple pregnancy, or the presence of an extra abdominal mass.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakketeig L, Eik-nes S H, Jacobsen G, Ulstein M K, Brodtkorb C J, Balstad P, Eriksen B C, Jorgensen N P 1984 Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet ii: 207–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett M J, Little G, Dewhurst C J, Chamberlain G 1982 Predictive value of ultrasound measurement in early pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 89: 338–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein R L 1969 Safety studies with ultrasonic doppler technique. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 34: 707–09Google Scholar
  4. British Medical Ultrasound Society 1988 Report of a working party on the prudent use of diagnostic ultrasound. BMUS, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckton K E, Baker N V 1972 An investigation into possible chromosome damaging effects of ultrasound on human blood cells. British Journal of Radiology 45: 340–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell S 1974 The assessment of fetal development by diagnostic ultrasound. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 75: 568–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell S, Pearce M J 1983 The prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies by ultrasound. Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 10: 475–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell S, Reading A E, Cox D N, et al 1982 Short term psychological effects of early ultrasonic scanning in pregnancy. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1: 57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell S, Thorns A 1977 Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdominal circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 84: 165–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Centrulo C L, Ingardia C J, Sbarra A J 1980 Management of multiple gestation. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 23: 533–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coakley W T, Slade J S, Braeman J M 1972 The examination of lymphocytes for chromosome aberrations after ultrasonic irradiation. British Journal of Radiology 45: 328–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottesfield K R, Thompson H E, Holmes J H, Taylor E S 1966 Ultrasonic placentography: a new method for placental localisation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 96: 538–47Google Scholar
  13. Grannum P A T, Berkowitz R L, Hobbins J C 1979 The ultrasonic changes in the maturing placenta and their relation to fetal pulmonic maturity. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 133: 915–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Grennert L, Pearson P H, Gennser G 1978 Benefits of ultrasound screening of a pregnant population. Acta Obstetrica et Gynaecologica Scandinavia 78 (supplement): 5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadlock F P, Deter R L, Carpenter R J, Park S K 1982a Fetal biparietal diameter: a critical re-evaluation of the relation to menstrual age by means of real time ultrasound. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 1: 97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hadlock F P, Deter R L, Harris R B, Park S K 1982b Fetal abdominal circumference as a predictor of menstrual age. American Journal of Radiology 139: 367Google Scholar
  17. Hawnylyshyn P A, Bartin M, Bernstein A, Papsin F R 1982 Twin pregnancies: a continuing perinatal challenge. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 59: 463–71Google Scholar
  18. Hellman L M, Dufus G M, Donald I, Sunden R 1970 Safety of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics. Lancet i:1133–5Google Scholar
  19. Hill C R, Joshi G P, Revell S H 1972 A search for chromosome damage following exposure of Chinese hamster cells to high intensity pulsed ultrasound. British Journal of Radiology 45: 333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kenyon S 1988 Support after termination for fetal abnormality. Midwives Chronicle 101 (1205): 190–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Leibskind D, Bases R, Mendez F, Elequin F, Koenigsberg M 1979 Sister chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes after exposure to diagnostic ultasound. Science 205: 1273–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyons E A, Coggrave-Toms M 1979 Long term follow up study of children exposed to ultrasound in utero. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual meeting of the American Institute of Medicine: 112, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  23. MacGillivray I 1980 Twins and other multiple deliveries. Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 7 (3): 581–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. MacIntosh I J C, Brown R C, Coakley W T 1975 Ultrasound (in vitro chromosome aberrations). British Journal of Radiology 48: 230–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacIntosh I J C, Davey D A 1970 Chromosome abberations induced by an ultrasonic fetal pulse detector. British Medical Journal 4: 92–3PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Manning F A, Menticoglou S, Harman C R, Morrison I, Lange I R 1987 Antepartum fetal risk assessment: the role of the fetal biophysical profile score. In Fetal monitoring. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1: 55–72Google Scholar
  27. Neilson J P, Munjanja S P, Whitfield C R 1984 Screening for small for dates fetuses: a controlled trial. British Medical Journal 289: 1179–82PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Neilson J P, Whitfield C R, Aitchison T C 1980 Screening for the small for dates fetus; a two stage procedure. British Medical Journal 1: 1203–06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearce J M 1987 Uteroplacental and fetal blood flow. In Fetal monitoring. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1 (1): 157–84Google Scholar
  30. Pearce J M, Campbell S 1983 Ultrasonic monitoring of normal and abnormal fetal growth. In Laurenson N R (ed) Principals and modern management of high risk pregnancy: 57–100. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Proud J R, Grant A 1987 Third trimester placental grading by ultrasonography as a test of fetal wellbeing. British Medical Journal 294: 1641–44PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rizos N, Doran T A, Miskin M, et al 1979 Natural history of placenta praevia ascertained by diagnostic ultrasound. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 133: 287–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Robinson D E, Mitchel A D, Edmunds P D 1981 Proceedings of 26th Annual Meeting of AIUM, Paper 1707. ALUM, Bethesda, MD: 122Google Scholar
  34. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 1984 Annual meeting of the American Institute of Medicine, Montreal: 112. Report of the RCOG working party on routine ultrasound examination in pregnancy. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Secker N J, Kaern J, Hansen P K 1985 Intrauterine growth in twin pregnancies:prediction of fetal growth retardation. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 66: 63–8Google Scholar
  36. Socal M L, Tamura R K, Sabbagha R E, Chen T, Vaisnuto N 1984 Diminished bi-parietal diameter and abdominal circumference growth in twins. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 66: 63–8Google Scholar
  37. Stark C R, Orleans M, Haverkamp A D; Murphy J 1984 Short and long term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 63: 194–200Google Scholar
  38. ter Haar G R, Daniels S 1981 Evidence for ultrasonically induced cavitation in vivo. Physics in Medicine and Biology 26: 1145–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Warsof S L, Pearce M J, Campbell S 1983 The present place of routine ultrasound screening. Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 10 (3): 445–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Watts P L, Hall A J, Fleming J E 1972 Ultrasound and chromosome damage.British Journal of Radiology 45: 335–39Google Scholar
  41. Wegner R D, Obe G, Meyenburg M 1980 Human genetics. In Lerski R A, Morley P (eds) Ultrasound 82. Pergamon press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Wells P N T (ed) 1987a The safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Report of a British Institute of Radiology working group. British Journal of Radiology, Supplement No 20Google Scholar
  43. Wells P N T 1987b The prudent use of diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 13 (7): 391–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Campbell S 1974 The assessment of fetal development by diagnostic ultrasound. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 75: 568–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kenyon S 1988 Support after termination for fetal abnormality. Midwives Chronicle 101 (1205): 190–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Proud J 1989 Placental grading as a test of fetal well-being. In Robinson S, Thomson A M (eds) Midwives, research and childbirth Vol 1. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 1984 Report of the RCOG working party of routine ultrasound examination in pregnancy. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Wells P N T (ed) 1987 The safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Report of a British Institute of Radiology working group. British Journal of Radiology, supplement no 20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jean Proud 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Proud

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations