Premium
Current status of vaginosonography: a world‐wide inquiry
Author(s) -
Bernaschek G.,
Deutinger J.
Publication year - 1992
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.1469-0705.1992.02050352.x
Subject(s) - medicine , technician , obstetrics and gynaecology , medical physics , diagnostic ultrasound , terminology , gynecology , ultrasound , radiology , electrical engineering , linguistics , philosophy , pregnancy , biology , genetics , engineering
In the last 5 years, vaginosonography has become a routine procedure in obstetrics and gynecology. Many obstetricians, gynecologists, radiologists and ultrasonographers have recognized the advantages of this method. Nearly all manufacturers of ultrasound equipment offer several types of vaginal probes. The rapid spread of vaginosonography has also led to some disadvantages concerning the lack of standardized terminology and image display. In this study, we collected data about the current standards of vaginosonography. To obtain data, questionnaires were sent out to the 1107 Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the FIG0 Registry 1985. In the accompanying letter, the chairman was asked to hand over the questionnaire to the appropriate specialist. The questionnaire was designed to gather information about the personnel performing vaginosonography and the techniques, transducer frequency, position of the patient and image display used. A total of 369 responses were received. Vaginosonographic investigations were performed in 84% of the University Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology. In 90% of these, vaginosonography was performed by the obstetrician or gynecologist, in 4% by the radiologist and in 6% by the technician. Most departments preferred end‐firing transducers. The numbers of electronic and mechanical probes were nearly identical (56% vs. 44%). The preferences for a scanner with a narrow (less than 120°) or wide angle (more than 120°) were very similar (53% vs. 47%). More than half of the responders (54%) used a transducer frequency of 5 MHz, while 46% preferred scanners with a frequency between 5.5 and 7.5 MHz. In 55%, the gynecological examination table was considered to be superior to a flat table. Of the responders, 52% projected the apex of the vaginal probe to the bottom of the ultrasound monitor. This was particularly the case in Europe (63%). Questioned about a preference for a particular orientation in the future, an additional 7% voted to change to this mode of image display world‐wide. When performing a sagittal section, if the probe was projected to the bottom of the screen, dorsally located to the structures were projected twice as often to the left of the screen as to the right. Copyright © 1992 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology