Premium
Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head: computer versus operator
Author(s) -
Zador I. E.,
Salari V.,
Chik L.,
Sokol R. J.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1991.01030208.x
Subject(s) - biparietal diameter , medicine , fetal head , ultrasound , head circumference , cephalometry , nuclear medicine , personal computer , circumference , head (geology) , 3d ultrasound , gestational age , fetus , radiology , pregnancy , mathematics , geometry , geology , computer science , geomorphology , computer hardware , biology , genetics
In obstetrical ultrasound practice, biparietal diameter, occipito‐frontal diameter and head circumference are among the most commonly used fetal measurements. To minimize the limitations associated with manual measurement, we have undertaken an investigation with a focus on (1) the design of a personal computer‐based system for automated measurements of biparietal diameter, occipito‐frontal diameter and head circumference, and (2) integration of such a system (including measurements of abdomen and femur) into the routine obstetrical ultrasound examination. This report presents preliminary results of a comparison of computer‐determined fetal head measurements with those obtained by an operator. Data were obtained from 75 consecutive singleton fetal ultrasound examinations free of any obvious structural anomalies. The computer obtained acceptable measurements of biparietal diameter, occipito‐frontal diameter and head circumference from 74 images and failed on one image. There was a highly significant correlation between computer‐determined measurements of biparietal diameter ( r = 0.986), occipito‐frontal diameter ( r = 0.958) and head circumference ( r = 0.972) and those obtained by the operators. The mean measurement difference (computer minus operator) was 1.87 ± 1.94 mm for biparietal diameter, 2.82 ± 4.13 mm for occipito‐frontal diameter and −0.36 ± 9.87 mm for head circumference. These differences were independent of the operator's identity, the instrument used and gestational age. The key finding of this study is that, with the use of inexpensive personal computer technology, it is possible to design and implement a system that can give fetal head measurements which correlate highly with manual determination by a skilled operator and which take a fraction of the time. Copyright © 1991 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology