Premium
The inaccuracy of total uterine volume measurements: sources of error and a proposed solution.
Author(s) -
Kurtz A B,
Shaw W M,
Kurtz R J,
Rifkin M D,
Pasto M E,
Cole-Beuglet C,
Baltarowich O H,
Wapner R J,
Foy P M,
Morgan P M,
Lutz M C,
Cox J F,
Goldberg B B
Publication year - 1984
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/jum.1984.3.7.289
Subject(s) - ellipse , supine position , prolate spheroid , medicine , position (finance) , volume (thermodynamics) , nuclear medicine , mathematical analysis , mathematics , geometry , physics , surgery , finance , quantum mechanics , economics
Inaccuracies in total intrauterine volumes calculated using the prolate ellipse equation have been reported. No previous study has examined all the sources of error. In this study, a comprehensive approach was undertaken. Measurements were obtained from scans of the pregnant uterus in the prone position using an automated water‐path scanner (Octoson) and in the supine position using standard static B‐mode scanners. Several conclusions could be drawn: 1) From the Octoson prone scans, uterine volumes obtained using the prolate ellipse formula were markedly different from the true uterine volumes obtained by the summation of stepped areas. This showed that the prolate ellipse formula was inaccurate. 2) From the static supine scans, many observer inconsistencies were found in uterine volumes obtained from the prolate ellipse formula. This made the prolate ellipse formula unreliable. 3) Previously published graphs calculated from the prolate ellipse equation, comparing fetal age with total intrauterine volume, were found to vary accuracy, presumably as a result of 1 and 2. A more accurate approach is proposed. Using the outer uterine wall as the boundary, the stepped area‐to‐volume values of transverse scans taken at 3‐cm intervals were found to closely approximate true volumes, with an average error of only 3.5 per cent. Since these measurements encompass the intrauterine contents and the myometrium, it is suggested that the term "total uterine volume" be used instead of "total intrauterine volume."