Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, Joachim W.

Editorial Board Member: / Bancalari, Eduardo / Greenough, Anne / Genc, Mehmet R. / Chervenak, Frank A. / Chappelle, Joseph / Bergmann, Renate L. / Bernardes, J.F. / Bevilacqua, G. / Blickstein, Isaac / Cabero Roura, Luis / Carbonell-Estrany, Xavier / Carrera, Jose M. / D`Addario, Vincenzo / D'Alton, MD, Mary E. / Dimitrou, G. / Grunebaum, Amos / Hentschel, Roland / Köpcke, W. / Kawabata, Ichiro / Keirse, M.J.M.C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Lee, Ben H. / Levene, Malcolm / Lockwood, Charles J. / Marsal, Karel / Makatsariya, Alexander / Nishida, Hiroshi / Ogata, Edward / Papp, Zoltán / Pejaver, Ranjan Kumar / Pooh, Ritsuko K. / Romero, Roberto / Saugstad, Ola D. / Schenker, Joseph G. / Sen, Cihat / Seri, Istvan / Vetter, Klaus / Winn, Hung N. / Young, Bruce K. / Zimmermann, Roland


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 1.798
Rank 46 out of 120 in category Pediatrics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2014: 0.731
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2014: 0.687
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2014: 1.483

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
See all formats and pricing

 


Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Transvaginal volumetry of first trimester gestational sac: A comparison of conventional with three-dimensional ultrasound

Thomas Müller / Marc Sütterlin / Uwe Pöhls / Johannes Dietl

Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine. Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 214–220, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2000.029, June 2005

Publication History

Published Online:
2005-06-01

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound is superior to two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound in evaluating first trimester gestational sac volume (GSV). 130 mainly low risk pregnancies between 5 and 12 weeks gestation were prospectively investigated. The 2D volumetry of GSV was performed using the ellipsoid formula; the 3D volumetry was carried out in all three planes using the contour mode and the volume from the measured circumferences and the distances between them were computed by a software. The data were analysed by variance and regression. The mean GSV increased from 1.5 ± 2 ml with 5 weeks to 127 ± 27 ml with 12 weeks (3D, longitudinal plane). The standard deviation of measured GSV increased with gestational age (GA) and GSV, and was more evident using 2D than 3D volumetry. GSV of pregnancies with similar GA differed considerably and viable pregnancies followed by miscarriage did not show different GSV. We conclude, that 3D volumetry of first trimester GSV is superior to 2D volumetry in its estimation, but seems to be without a prognostic significance for gestational outcome.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Patricia Spara Gadelha, Antonio Gadelha Da Costa, Francisco Mauad Filho, and Patricía El Beitune
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 2006, Volume 32, Number 8, Page 1135
[3]
Ling Zhang, Siping Chen, Chien Ting Chin, Tianfu Wang, and Shengli Li
Medical Physics, 2012, Volume 39, Number 8, Page 5015
[4]
Nermin Köşüş, Aydın Köşüş, and Nilgün Öztürk Turhan
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2012, Volume 286, Number 2, Page 365
[5]
Aydın Köşüş, Nermin Köşüş, and Nilgün Ö Turhan
Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 2012, Volume 25, Number 7, Page 1117
[6]
Khaled Abduljalil, Penny Furness, Trevor N. Johnson, Amin Rostami-Hodjegan, and Hora Soltani
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 2012, Volume 51, Number 6, Page 365
[7]
William Lees
Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI, 2001, Volume 22, Number 1, Page 85
[8]
M. Rousian, A. H. J. Koning, W. C. Hop, P. J. van der Spek, N. Exalto, and E. A. P. Steegers
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, Volume 38, Number 5, Page 524
[9]
Cecilia Bottomley and Tom Bourne
Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2009, Volume 23, Number 4, Page 463
[10]
P.M. Nowak, L.M.M. Nardozza, E. Araujo Júnior, L.C. Rolo, and A.F. Moron
Placenta, 2008, Volume 29, Number 3, Page 241
[11]
George D. Michailidis, Demetrios L. Economides, and Ralf L. Schild
Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2001, Volume 13, Number 2, Page 207
[12]
Liliam Cristine Rolo, Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza, Edward Araujo Júnior, Paulo Martin Nowak, and Antonio Fernandes Moron
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2010, Volume 281, Number 2, Page 235
[13]
J. S. Bagratee, L. Regan, V. Khullar, C. Connolly, and J. Moodley
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2009, Volume 34, Number 5, Page 503
[14]
Liliam Cristine Rolo, Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza, Edward Araujo Júnior, Paulo Martin Nowak, and Antonio Fernandes Moron
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2009, Volume 279, Number 6, Page 821
[15]
Manjiri Dighe, Carlos Cuevas, Mariam Moshiri, Theodore Dubinsky, and Vikram S. Dogra
Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, 2008, Volume 36, Number 6, Page 352
[16]
W. Lee, R. L. Deter, B. McNie, M. Powell, M. Balasubramaniam, L. F. Gonçalves, J. Espinoza, and R. Romero
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2006, Volume 28, Number 3, Page 255
[17]
O. Falcon, P. Wegrzyn, C. Faro, C. F. A. Peralta, and K. H. Nicolaides
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2005, Volume 25, Number 6, Page 546
[18]
Prenatal Diagnosis, 2000, Volume 20, Number 12, Page 1021
[19]
Ganesh Acharya and Heulwen Morgan
Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, 2002, Volume 30, Number 9, Page 526

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.