Premium
WS14‐08Three dimensions in neonatal period
Author(s) -
Stanojevic M.
Publication year - 2000
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.1469-0705.2000.00009-1-92.x
Subject(s) - medicine , gestational age , nuclear medicine , significant difference , pregnancy , genetics , biology
Background The aim of this study was to compare the application of 2D neurosonography (USG) and 3D USG in newborns with respect to the time required to obtain the data for analysis. Method All newborns in whom neurosonography was indicated underwent 2D USG and 3D USG by the same investigator. The Voluson 530 D Color System was used with vaginal 5–8 MHz 3D probe for 3D imaging. 2D real‐time imaging was performed with Aloka SSD 121 device using 5 MHz sector probe. The time needed to perform the examination was determined. Non‐parametric Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test was used in statistical analysis. Results A total of 30 newborn infants of different gestational ages (ranging from 25 to 40 weeks) underwent USG after delivery at different postnatal ages (ranging from 2 to 60 days). The median time required to perform the 2D USG was 14 min (10–21). The median time required to perform the investigation by 3D USG was 5 min (ranging from 3 to 10). The difference was statistically significant (H = 24.88; P = 0.0031). The median time of data interpretation for 2D USG was 25 min (15–35), and for 3D USG it was 45 min (30–63). The difference was not statistically significant (H = 13.22; P = 0.1531). Conclusion The time necessary to obtain 3D USG compared to 2D USG images was shorter, which made it less stressful for the newborns. 3D USG provides more reliable information than 2D USG performed in the same patient at the same age. The time needed to interpret the data is longer for 3D USG but it can be performed after the imaging was terminated.