The Role of Prenatal Ultrasound in Ensuring Fetal Health
Keywords:
Prenatal period, Ultrasound technique, Fetal HealthAbstract
Background: The merits of carrying out an early ultrasound during pregnancy are the precise estimation of age, detection of multiple pregnancies before, and identifying failed pregnancies and some fetal anomalies.
Aim: A review study was conducted to analyse the extent to which prenatal ultrasound plays a role in ensuring fetal health.
Methods: A review study was conducted on participants who had undergone all previous reviews (6). The objective of our review was to examine the role of ultrasound techniques in the investigation of the prenatal period and their effect on the foetus. A total of 65 pregnant women were included in the review. As with all reviews, the objective was to ascertain the impact of ultrasound on fetal health.
Results: The earlier reviews that assessed the use of ultrasound screening have also had improved results in diagnosis, such as the early detection of cases of multiple pregnancy and correction of gestational age miscalculations, and also revealed different effects on ultrasound screening on the length of hospital stay and also induction of labor among other interventions. We found ultrasound diagnoses of fetal conditions, which are available during prenatal care, that contribute to the reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality. In all reviews there was no difference in outcome, but we found that early detection by ultrasound technique contributed the most towards improved fetal findings.
Conclusion: Ultrasounds performed during pregnancy are important for the health of both the woman and the baby, helping caregivers make appropriate choices for managing the pregnancy.
References
Smith J. Advances in ultrasonography in prenatal diagnosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2019; 39:3–8.
Nicholas L., Fischbein R., Ernst-Milner S., Wani R. Review of International Clinical Guidelines Related to Prenatal Screening during Monochorionic Pregnancies. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10:1128.
Leanza V., Incognito G.G., Gulino F.A., Tuscano A., Cimino M., Palumbo M. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Successful Ultrasound-Guided Removal after Uterine Artery Ligation. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 2023:6026206.
Orlandi G., Toscano P., Gabrielli O., Di Lella E., Lettieri A., Manzo L., Mazzarelli L.L., Sica C., Di Meglio L., Di Meglio L., et al. Prenatal Diagnosis of an Intrathoracic Left Kidney Associated with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: Case Report and Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2023; 12:3608.
Staicu A., Popa-Stanila R., Albu C., Chira A., Constantin R., Boitor-Borza D., Surcel M., Rotar I.C., Cruciat G., Muresan D. Neonatal Hemochromatosis: Systematic Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Findings—Is There a Place for MRI in the Diagnostic Process? J. Clin. Med. 2023;12:2679.
Vena F., Manganaro L., D’Ambrosio V., Masciullo L., Ventriglia F., Ercolani G., Bertolini C., Catalano C., Di Mascio D., D’Alberti E., et al. Neuroimaging and Cerebrovascular Changes in Fetuses with Complex Congenital Heart Disease. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11:6740.
Nurmaini S., Partan R.U., Bernolian N., Sapitri A.I., Tutuko B., Rachmatullah M.N., Darmawahyuni A., Firdaus F., Mose J.C. Deep Learning for Improving the Effectiveness of Routine Prenatal Screening for Major Congenital Heart Diseases. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11:6454.
Recker F., Weber E.C., Strizek B., Herberg U., Brockmaier K., Gottschalk I., Geipel A., Gembruch U., Berg C. Prenatal Diagnosis and Outcome of Scimitar Syndrome: A Case Series of Six Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11:1696.
Ferreira R.G., Mendonça C.R., de Moraes C.L., de Abreu Tacon F.S., Ramos L.L.G., Melo N.C., Sbragia L., do Amaral W.N., Ruano R. Ultrasound Markers for Complex Gastroschisis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10:5215.
Pappalardo E., Gulino F.A., Ettore C., Cannone F., Ettore G. Body Stalk Anomaly Complicated by Ectopia Cordis: First-Trimester Diagnosis of Two Cases Using 2- and 3-Dimensional Sonography. J. Clin. Med. 2023; 12:1896.
Bohiltea R.E., Varlas V.N., Dima V., Iordache A.M., Salmen T., Mihai B.M., Bohiltea A.T., Vladareanu E.M., Ducu I., Grigoriu C. The Strategy against Iatrogenic Prematurity Due to True Umbilical Knot: From Prenatal Diagnosis Challenges to the Favorable Fetal Outcome. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11:818.
Leanza V., D’Urso V., Gulisano M., Incognito G.G., Palumbo M. Bulging of both membranes and fetal lower limbs. Minerva Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 73:654–658.
Leanza V., Incognito G.G., Gulisano M., Incognito D., Correnti S.G., Palumbo M. Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich syndrome and central placenta previa in a COVID-19 positive pregnant woman: A case report. Ital. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2023; 35:136–141.
Moore T.R., Cayle J.E. The amniotic fluid index in normal human pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 161:382–388.
Ciortea R., Malutan A.M., Bucuri C.E., Berceanu C., Rada M.P., Ormindean C.M., Mihu D. Amniocentesis—When It Is Clear That It Is Not Clear. J. Clin. Med. 2023; 12:454.
Krampl E., Brugger P.C., Prayer D. Fetal ultrasound: Challenges in the third trimester. Prenat. Diagn. 2014; 34:1241–1246.
Ahman A, Runestam K, Sarkadi A. Did I really want to know this? Pregnant women’s reaction to detection of a soft marker during ultrasound screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 81: 87–93.
Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women’s reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol. 2000; 5: 377–394.
Bashour H, Hafez R, Abdulsalam A. Syrian women’s perceptions and experiences of ultrasound screening in pregnancy: Implications for antenatal policy. Reprod Health Matters. 2005; 13: 147–154.
Carolan M, Hodnett E. Discovery of soft markers on fetal ultrasound: maternal implications. Midwifery. 2009; 25: 654–664.
Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A-K. A qualitative study of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery. 2004; 20: 335–344.
Larsson A-K, Svalenius EC, Lundqvist A, Dykes A-K. Parents’ experiences of an abnormal ultrasound examination—vacillating between emotional confusion and sense of reality. Reprod Health. 2010; 7: 10.
Lou S, Frumer M, Schlütter MM, Petersen OB, Vogel I, Nielsen CP. Experiences and expectations in the first trimester of pregnancy: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2017; 20: 1320–1329.
Mitchell LM. Women’s experiences of unexpected ultrasound findings. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004; 49: 228–234.
Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010; 26: 18–26.
Thorpe K, Harker L, Pike A, Marlow N. Women’s views of ultrasonography. A comparison of women’s experiences of antenatal ultrasound screening with cerebral ultrasound of their newborn infant. Soc Sci Med. 1993; 36: 311–315.
Barr O, Skirton H. Informed decision making regarding antenatal screening for fetal abnormality in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study of parents and professionals: Informed consent and antenatal screening. Nurs Health Sci. 2013; 15: 318–325.
Walsh T, Tolman R, Davis R, Palladino C, Romero V, Singh V. Moving Up the "Magic Moment": Fathers’ Experience of Prenatal Ultrasound. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers. 2014; 12: 18–37.
Åhman A, Lindgren P, Sarkadi A. Facts first, then reaction—expectant fathers’ experiences of an ultrasound screening identifying soft markers. Midwifery. 2012; 28: e667–75.
Dheensa S, Williams R, Metcalfe A. Shattered Schemata and Fragmented Identities: Men’s Experiences of Antenatal Genetic Screening in Great Britain. J Fam Issues. 2013; 34: 1081–1103.
Dheensa S, Metcalfe PA, Williams R. What do men want from antenatal screening? Findings from an interview study in England. Midwifery. 2015; 31: 208–214.
