Principles of 3D Ultrasound

  • Maximilian Murtinger
  • Dietmar Spitzer
  • Nicolas Herbert Zech


Within the last few years, 3D ultrasound (US) has become an approved tool for use in the field of in vitro fertilization (IVF). An increasing number of publications within the last decade have demonstrated that the application of 3D sonography in medicine is superior to the conventional 2D technique. Therefore, it is very likely that it will play an increasingly important role in assisted reproductive techniques (ART) such as follicle monitoring or in the detection of pelvic pathologies. However, as 3D ultrasound is still a new tool, there is a lack of standardization. Moreover, many aspects of this innovative technique and its novel instruments are often not well understood by many operators. Therefore, 3D US application often lags behind its scope. This chapter will address the basic principles and techniques for producing 3D US images and how to optimize image quality. We will discuss its technical capabilities as well as its limitations, such as artifacts due to improper calibration. In addition, a short list of clinical applications for this technique will be presented.


Artificial Reproduction Technology Endometrial Volume Volume Contrast Imaging Speckle Reduction Imaging Tomographic Ultrasound Imaging 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Mahadevan M, Chalder K, Wiseman D, Leader A, Taylor PJ. Evidence for an absence of deleterious effects of ultrasound on human oocytes. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1987;4:277–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E, Mazor M. Ultrasound in obstetrics: a review of safety. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;101:15–8. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinkley JF, Muramatsu SK, McCallum WD, Popp RL. In vitro evaluation of an ultrasonic three-dimensional imaging and volume system. Ultrason Imaging. 1982;4:126–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rinck PA, Petersen SB. Muller RN [NMR-whole body tomography: a new imaging method]. Radiologe. 1983;23:341–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vannier MW, Marsh JL, Warren JO. Three-dimensional CT reconstruction images for craniofacial surgical planning and evaluation. Radiology. 1984;150:179–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lees W. Ultrasound imaging in three and four dimensions. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2001;22:85–105. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baba K, Satoh K. Development of a system for ultrasonic fetal three-dimensional reconstruction. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn. 1986;38:1385.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baba K, Satch K, Sakamoto S, Oka T, Shiego I. Development of an ultrasonic system for three-dimensional reconstruction of the fetus. J Perinat Med. 1989;17:19–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Von Ramm OT, Smith SW. Three-dimensional imaging system.1987. United States Patent 4694434. Last accessed on 23 May 2013.
  10. 10.
    OBGYN.NET. Kretz museum tour – the history of ultrasound. Last accessed on 23 May 2013.
  11. 11.
    Brandl H, Gritzky A, Haizinger M. 3D ultrasound: a dedicated system. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:331–3. Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alcazar JL. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecological patients. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;2:10–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller DL. Safety assurance in obstetrical ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2008;29:156–64. Review.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Merz E. 3D ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. Curr Obstet Gynecol. 1999;9:93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang H, Banovac F, White A, Cleary K. Freehand 3D ultrasound calibration using an electromagnetically tracked needle. Available from: Last Accessed on 23 May 2013.
  16. 16.
    Fenster A, Downey DB, Cardinal HN. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46:R67–99. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz HP, Shek KL. Tomographic ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor: which levels matter most? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:698–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruano R. Recent advances in sonographic imaging of fetal thoracic structures. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2005;2:217–22. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jouannic JM, Rosenblatt J, Demaria F, Jacobs R, Aubry MC, Benifla JL. Contribution of three-dimensional volume contrast imaging to the sonographic assessment of the fetal uterus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:567–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benacerraf BR. Inversion mode display of 3D sonography: applications in obstetric and gynecologic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:965–71. Review.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weber G, Merz E, Bahlmann F, Macchiella D. Ultrasound assessment of ovarian tumors–comparison between transvaginal 3D technique and conventional 2-dimensional vaginal ultrasonography. Ultraschall Med. 1997;18:26–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campbell S. The potential diagnostic capabilities of three-dimensional surface rendering. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;14:148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turan S, Turan O, Baschat AA. Three- and four-dimensional fetal echocardiography. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009;25:361–72. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adriaanse BM, Tromp CH, Simpson JM, Van Mieghem T, Kist WJ, Kuik DJ, Oepkes D, Van Vugt JM, Haak MC. Interobserver agreement in detailed prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease by telemedicine using four-dimensional ultrasound with spatiotemporal image correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:203–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hongmei W, Ying Z, Ailu C, Wei S. Novel application of four-dimensional sonography with B-flow imaging and spatiotemporal image correlation in the assessment of fetal congenital heart defects. Echocardiography. 2012;29:614–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeo L, Romero R, Jodicke C, Oggè G, Lee W, Kusanovic JP, Vaisbuch E, Hassan S. Four-chamber view and ‘swing technique’ (FAST) echo: a novel and simple algorithm to visualize standard fetal echocardiographic planes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:423–31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Merz E, Miric-Tesanic D, Welter C. Value of the electronic scalpel (cut mode) in the evaluation of the fetal face. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:564–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Powers J, Kremkau F. Medical ultrasound systems. Interface Focus. 2011;1:477–89.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Udupa JK. Three-dimensional visualization and analysis methodologies: a current perspective. Radiographics. 1999;19:783–806. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson TR, Pretorius DH, Lev-Toaff A, Bega G, Budorick NE, Hollenbach KA, Needleman L. Feasibility of performing a virtual patient examination using three-dimensional ultrasonographic data acquired at remote locations. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20:941–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Merz E, Abramowicz JS. 3D/4D ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: is it time for routine use? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55:336–51. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rizzo G, Pietrolucci M, Aiello E, Mammarella S, Bosi C, Arduini D. The role of three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of fetal congenital anomalies: a review. Minerva Ginecol. 2011;63:401–10. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bulletti C, DE Ziegler D, Levi Setti P, Cicinelli E, Polli V, Stefanetti M. Myomas, pregnancy outcome, and in vitro fertilization. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1034:84–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:523–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosendahl M, Ernst E, Rasmussen PE, Andersen CY. True ovarian volume is underestimated by two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound measurement. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:995–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vanderzwalmen P, Zech NH, Ectors F, Stecher A, Lejeune B, Vanderzwalmen S, Wirleitner B. Blastocyst transfer after aseptic vitrification of zygotes: an approach to overcome an impaired uterine environment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:591–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sladkevicius P, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G. Three-dimensional power Doppler imaging in the assessment of Fallopian tube patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:644–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Raine-Fenning NJ. Quantitative analysis of antral follicle number and size: a comparison of two-dimensional and automated three-dimensional ultrasound techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shaw SW, Hsieh TT, Hsu JJ, Lee CL, Cheng PJ. Measurement of nuchal volume in the first trimester down screening using three-dimensional ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:69–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Youssef A, Arcangeli T, Radico D, Contro E, Guasina F, Bellussi F, Maroni E, Morselli-Labate AM, Farina A, Pilu G, Pelusi G, Ghi T. Accuracy of fetal gender determination in the first trimester using three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:557–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jang M, Kim SM, Lyou CY, Choi BS, Choi SI, Kim JH. Differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules: comparison of 2- and 3- dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:197–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H. Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22:297–302. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Downey DB, Fenster A. Vascular imaging with a three-dimensional power Doppler system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:665–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Houck RC, Cooke JE, Gill EA. Live 3D echocardiography: a replacement for traditional 2D echocardiography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1092–106. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pooh RK, Kurjak A. 3D and 4D sonography and magnetic resonance in the assessment of normal and abnormal CNS development: alternative or complementary. J Perinat Med. 2011;39:3–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Murtinger
    • 1
  • Dietmar Spitzer
    • 3
  • Nicolas Herbert Zech
    • 2
  1. 1.IVF Centers Prof. ZechBregenzAustria
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University GrazBregenzAustria
  3. 3.IVF Centers Prof. Zech, InnsbruckerSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations