What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography?

Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2‐dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3‐dimensional/4‐dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. Methods. Ninety‐nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2006-06, Vol.25 (6), p.691-699
Hauptverfasser: Goncalves, Luis F, Nien, Jyh Kae, Espinoza, Jimmy, Kusanovic, Juan Pedro, Lee, Wesley, Swope, Betsy, Soto, Eleazar, Treadwell, Marjorie C, Romero, Roberto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 699
container_issue 6
container_start_page 691
container_title Journal of ultrasound in medicine
container_volume 25
creator Goncalves, Luis F
Nien, Jyh Kae
Espinoza, Jimmy
Kusanovic, Juan Pedro
Lee, Wesley
Swope, Betsy
Soto, Eleazar
Treadwell, Marjorie C
Romero, Roberto
description Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2‐dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3‐dimensional/4‐dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. Methods. Ninety‐nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography. Volume data sets were evaluated by a blinded independent examiner who, after establishing an initial diagnostic impression by 3D/4D ultrasonography, performed a 2D ultrasonographic examination. The frequency of agreement and diagnostic accuracy of each modality to detect congenital anomalies were calculated and compared. Results. Fifty‐four fetuses with no abnormalities and 45 fetuses with 82 anomalies diagnosed by 2D ultrasonography were examined. Agreement between 3D/4D and 2D ultrasonography occurred for 90.4% of the findings (123/136; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.834; 95% confidence interval, 0.774–0.879). Six anomalies were missed by 3D/4D ultrasonography when compared to 2D ultrasonography (ventricular septal defect [n = 2], interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation [n = 1], tetralogy of Fallot [n = 1], horseshoe kidney [n = 1], and cystic adenomatoid malformation [n = 1]). There were 2 discordant diagnoses: transposition of the great arteries diagnosed as a double‐outlet right ventricle and pulmonary atresia misinterpreted as tricuspid atresia on 3D/4D ultrasonography. One case of occult spinal dysraphism was suspected on 3D ultrasonography but not confirmed by 2D ultrasonography. When compared to diagnoses performed after delivery (n = 106), the sensitivity and specificity of 3D/4D ultrasonography (92.2% [47/51] and 76.4% [42/55], respectively) and 2D ultrasonography (96.1% [49/51] and 72.7% [40/55]) were not significantly different (P = .233). Conclusions. Information provided by 2D ultrasonography is consistent, in most cases, with information provided by the examination of 3D/4D volume data sets alone.
doi_str_mv 10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.691
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68014034</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68014034</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4251-c8ea8c538cbdcf4028e609ea5820a1e66f31ab63a240c32056eafc301bb8a4ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1r3DAQhkVoSbZpf0AvRZfmZnf0aS0USkiaj5KSS7c9irEs7yr4YyN5Mfvv48VLS049DQzP-87wEPKRQV4YLb487dqcA-icq1zneslOyIIpBdlSM_GGLIAXJpN8WZyRdyk9AXBghTwlZ0wXghmjFuT3nw0O9Lr3ifLsOrS-S6HvsKH3La5Dt6aXVUWHnoqMYldR-Yp5LNPghxgcXTVDxNR3_TridrP_9p68rbFJ_sNxnpPVzfdfV3fZw-Pt_dXlQ-YkVyxzxqNxShhXVq6WwI3XsPSoDAdkXutaMCy1QC7BCQ5Ke6ydAFaWBmVdi3NyMfduY_-882mwbUjONw12vt8lqw0wCUJOIJtBF_uUoq_tNoYW494ysAeZdpJpDzItV1bbSeaU-XQs35Wtr_4ljvYm4OsMjKHx-_832h-rn4cFV3ru_zzHN2G9GUP0NrXYNNM1Zsdx_PvHC9ztjvs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68014034</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Goncalves, Luis F ; Nien, Jyh Kae ; Espinoza, Jimmy ; Kusanovic, Juan Pedro ; Lee, Wesley ; Swope, Betsy ; Soto, Eleazar ; Treadwell, Marjorie C ; Romero, Roberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Goncalves, Luis F ; Nien, Jyh Kae ; Espinoza, Jimmy ; Kusanovic, Juan Pedro ; Lee, Wesley ; Swope, Betsy ; Soto, Eleazar ; Treadwell, Marjorie C ; Romero, Roberto</creatorcontrib><description>Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2‐dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3‐dimensional/4‐dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. Methods. Ninety‐nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography. Volume data sets were evaluated by a blinded independent examiner who, after establishing an initial diagnostic impression by 3D/4D ultrasonography, performed a 2D ultrasonographic examination. The frequency of agreement and diagnostic accuracy of each modality to detect congenital anomalies were calculated and compared. Results. Fifty‐four fetuses with no abnormalities and 45 fetuses with 82 anomalies diagnosed by 2D ultrasonography were examined. Agreement between 3D/4D and 2D ultrasonography occurred for 90.4% of the findings (123/136; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.834; 95% confidence interval, 0.774–0.879). Six anomalies were missed by 3D/4D ultrasonography when compared to 2D ultrasonography (ventricular septal defect [n = 2], interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation [n = 1], tetralogy of Fallot [n = 1], horseshoe kidney [n = 1], and cystic adenomatoid malformation [n = 1]). There were 2 discordant diagnoses: transposition of the great arteries diagnosed as a double‐outlet right ventricle and pulmonary atresia misinterpreted as tricuspid atresia on 3D/4D ultrasonography. One case of occult spinal dysraphism was suspected on 3D ultrasonography but not confirmed by 2D ultrasonography. When compared to diagnoses performed after delivery (n = 106), the sensitivity and specificity of 3D/4D ultrasonography (92.2% [47/51] and 76.4% [42/55], respectively) and 2D ultrasonography (96.1% [49/51] and 72.7% [40/55]) were not significantly different (P = .233). Conclusions. Information provided by 2D ultrasonography is consistent, in most cases, with information provided by the examination of 3D/4D volume data sets alone.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-4297</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-9613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.691</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16731885</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Am inst Ulrrasound Med</publisher><subject>3‐dimensional ultrasonography ; 4‐dimensional ultrasonography ; accuracy ; congenital anomalies ; Female ; fetus ; Fetus - abnormalities ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Pregnancy ; prenatal diagnosis ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; sonographic tomography ; spatiotemporal image correlation ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><ispartof>Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2006-06, Vol.25 (6), p.691-699</ispartof><rights>2016 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4251-c8ea8c538cbdcf4028e609ea5820a1e66f31ab63a240c32056eafc301bb8a4ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4251-c8ea8c538cbdcf4028e609ea5820a1e66f31ab63a240c32056eafc301bb8a4ff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.7863%2Fjum.2006.25.6.691$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.7863%2Fjum.2006.25.6.691$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16731885$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goncalves, Luis F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nien, Jyh Kae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espinoza, Jimmy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kusanovic, Juan Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Wesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swope, Betsy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soto, Eleazar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Treadwell, Marjorie C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Romero, Roberto</creatorcontrib><title>What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography?</title><title>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</title><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><description>Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2‐dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3‐dimensional/4‐dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. Methods. Ninety‐nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography. Volume data sets were evaluated by a blinded independent examiner who, after establishing an initial diagnostic impression by 3D/4D ultrasonography, performed a 2D ultrasonographic examination. The frequency of agreement and diagnostic accuracy of each modality to detect congenital anomalies were calculated and compared. Results. Fifty‐four fetuses with no abnormalities and 45 fetuses with 82 anomalies diagnosed by 2D ultrasonography were examined. Agreement between 3D/4D and 2D ultrasonography occurred for 90.4% of the findings (123/136; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.834; 95% confidence interval, 0.774–0.879). Six anomalies were missed by 3D/4D ultrasonography when compared to 2D ultrasonography (ventricular septal defect [n = 2], interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation [n = 1], tetralogy of Fallot [n = 1], horseshoe kidney [n = 1], and cystic adenomatoid malformation [n = 1]). There were 2 discordant diagnoses: transposition of the great arteries diagnosed as a double‐outlet right ventricle and pulmonary atresia misinterpreted as tricuspid atresia on 3D/4D ultrasonography. One case of occult spinal dysraphism was suspected on 3D ultrasonography but not confirmed by 2D ultrasonography. When compared to diagnoses performed after delivery (n = 106), the sensitivity and specificity of 3D/4D ultrasonography (92.2% [47/51] and 76.4% [42/55], respectively) and 2D ultrasonography (96.1% [49/51] and 72.7% [40/55]) were not significantly different (P = .233). Conclusions. Information provided by 2D ultrasonography is consistent, in most cases, with information provided by the examination of 3D/4D volume data sets alone.</description><subject>3‐dimensional ultrasonography</subject><subject>4‐dimensional ultrasonography</subject><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>congenital anomalies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>fetus</subject><subject>Fetus - abnormalities</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>prenatal diagnosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>sonographic tomography</subject><subject>spatiotemporal image correlation</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><issn>0278-4297</issn><issn>1550-9613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1r3DAQhkVoSbZpf0AvRZfmZnf0aS0USkiaj5KSS7c9irEs7yr4YyN5Mfvv48VLS049DQzP-87wEPKRQV4YLb487dqcA-icq1zneslOyIIpBdlSM_GGLIAXJpN8WZyRdyk9AXBghTwlZ0wXghmjFuT3nw0O9Lr3ifLsOrS-S6HvsKH3La5Dt6aXVUWHnoqMYldR-Yp5LNPghxgcXTVDxNR3_TridrP_9p68rbFJ_sNxnpPVzfdfV3fZw-Pt_dXlQ-YkVyxzxqNxShhXVq6WwI3XsPSoDAdkXutaMCy1QC7BCQ5Ke6ydAFaWBmVdi3NyMfduY_-882mwbUjONw12vt8lqw0wCUJOIJtBF_uUoq_tNoYW494ysAeZdpJpDzItV1bbSeaU-XQs35Wtr_4ljvYm4OsMjKHx-_832h-rn4cFV3ru_zzHN2G9GUP0NrXYNNM1Zsdx_PvHC9ztjvs</recordid><startdate>200606</startdate><enddate>200606</enddate><creator>Goncalves, Luis F</creator><creator>Nien, Jyh Kae</creator><creator>Espinoza, Jimmy</creator><creator>Kusanovic, Juan Pedro</creator><creator>Lee, Wesley</creator><creator>Swope, Betsy</creator><creator>Soto, Eleazar</creator><creator>Treadwell, Marjorie C</creator><creator>Romero, Roberto</creator><general>Am inst Ulrrasound Med</general><general>American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200606</creationdate><title>What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography?</title><author>Goncalves, Luis F ; Nien, Jyh Kae ; Espinoza, Jimmy ; Kusanovic, Juan Pedro ; Lee, Wesley ; Swope, Betsy ; Soto, Eleazar ; Treadwell, Marjorie C ; Romero, Roberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4251-c8ea8c538cbdcf4028e609ea5820a1e66f31ab63a240c32056eafc301bb8a4ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>3‐dimensional ultrasonography</topic><topic>4‐dimensional ultrasonography</topic><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>congenital anomalies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>fetus</topic><topic>Fetus - abnormalities</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>prenatal diagnosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>sonographic tomography</topic><topic>spatiotemporal image correlation</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goncalves, Luis F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nien, Jyh Kae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espinoza, Jimmy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kusanovic, Juan Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Wesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swope, Betsy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soto, Eleazar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Treadwell, Marjorie C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Romero, Roberto</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goncalves, Luis F</au><au>Nien, Jyh Kae</au><au>Espinoza, Jimmy</au><au>Kusanovic, Juan Pedro</au><au>Lee, Wesley</au><au>Swope, Betsy</au><au>Soto, Eleazar</au><au>Treadwell, Marjorie C</au><au>Romero, Roberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><date>2006-06</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>691</spage><epage>699</epage><pages>691-699</pages><issn>0278-4297</issn><eissn>1550-9613</eissn><abstract>Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 2‐dimensional (2D) ultrasonography adds diagnostic information to that provided by the examination of 3‐dimensional/4‐dimensional (3D/4D) volume data sets alone. Methods. Ninety‐nine fetuses were examined by 3D/4D volume ultrasonography. Volume data sets were evaluated by a blinded independent examiner who, after establishing an initial diagnostic impression by 3D/4D ultrasonography, performed a 2D ultrasonographic examination. The frequency of agreement and diagnostic accuracy of each modality to detect congenital anomalies were calculated and compared. Results. Fifty‐four fetuses with no abnormalities and 45 fetuses with 82 anomalies diagnosed by 2D ultrasonography were examined. Agreement between 3D/4D and 2D ultrasonography occurred for 90.4% of the findings (123/136; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.834; 95% confidence interval, 0.774–0.879). Six anomalies were missed by 3D/4D ultrasonography when compared to 2D ultrasonography (ventricular septal defect [n = 2], interrupted inferior vena cava with azygous continuation [n = 1], tetralogy of Fallot [n = 1], horseshoe kidney [n = 1], and cystic adenomatoid malformation [n = 1]). There were 2 discordant diagnoses: transposition of the great arteries diagnosed as a double‐outlet right ventricle and pulmonary atresia misinterpreted as tricuspid atresia on 3D/4D ultrasonography. One case of occult spinal dysraphism was suspected on 3D ultrasonography but not confirmed by 2D ultrasonography. When compared to diagnoses performed after delivery (n = 106), the sensitivity and specificity of 3D/4D ultrasonography (92.2% [47/51] and 76.4% [42/55], respectively) and 2D ultrasonography (96.1% [49/51] and 72.7% [40/55]) were not significantly different (P = .233). Conclusions. Information provided by 2D ultrasonography is consistent, in most cases, with information provided by the examination of 3D/4D volume data sets alone.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Am inst Ulrrasound Med</pub><pmid>16731885</pmid><doi>10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.691</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0278-4297
ispartof Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2006-06, Vol.25 (6), p.691-699
issn 0278-4297
1550-9613
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68014034
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects 3‐dimensional ultrasonography
4‐dimensional ultrasonography
accuracy
congenital anomalies
Female
fetus
Fetus - abnormalities
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Pregnancy
prenatal diagnosis
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
sonographic tomography
spatiotemporal image correlation
Ultrasonography, Prenatal
title What Does 2-Dimensional Imaging Add to 3- and 4-Dimensional Obstetric Ultrasonography?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T03%3A09%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Does%202-Dimensional%20Imaging%20Add%20to%203-%20and%204-Dimensional%20Obstetric%20Ultrasonography?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ultrasound%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Goncalves,%20Luis%20F&rft.date=2006-06&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=691&rft.epage=699&rft.pages=691-699&rft.issn=0278-4297&rft.eissn=1550-9613&rft_id=info:doi/10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.691&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68014034%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68014034&rft_id=info:pmid/16731885&rfr_iscdi=true