Advertisement

Nonmedical Use of Ultrasound: Bioeffects and Safety Risk

      Nonmedical ultrasound, also known as entertainment or keepsake ultrasound, is, as the name clearly indicates, the performance of obstetrical ultrasound with no medical indication but to provide the mother/parents to be with images or video clips of the fetus (on hard copy, tape, CD or DVD), also called “scanning for pleasure” (
      • Chudleigh T.
      Scanning for pleasure.
      ). One of the most important issues to be addressed is that of safety of ultrasound and risk to the fetus.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Abbott J.G.
        Rationale and derivation of MI and TI–A review.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999; 25: 431-441
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        • Fowlkes J.B.
        • Skelly A.C.
        • Stratmeyer M.E.
        • Ziskin M.C.
        Conclusions regarding epidemiology for obstetric ultrasound.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2008; 27: 637-644
        • American College of obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
        ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 297: Nonmedical use of obstetric ultrasonography.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104: 423-424
        • American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM)
        AIUM official statement: Conclusions regarding epidemiology for obstetric ultrasound. [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed April 3, 2009)
        • American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM)
        AIUM official statement: Keepsake fetal imaging. [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed April 3, 2009)
        • American Pregnancy Association
        Promoting reproductive and pregnancy wellness. Keepsake ultrasound pictures. [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 20, 2007)
        • Ang E.S.B.C.
        • Gluncic V.
        • Duque A.
        • Schafer M.E.
        • Rakic P.
        Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice.
        Proc NY Acad Sci. 2006; 103: 12903-12910
        • Baby's First Images
        Answers. Is ultrasound safe? [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed March 12, 2009)
        • Barnett S.B.
        Biophysical aspects of diagnostic ultrasound.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000; 26: S68-S70
        • Barnett S.B.
        Routine ultrasound scanning in first trimester: What are the risks?.
        Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2002; 23: 387-391
        • Bellieni C.V.
        • Buonocore G.
        • Bagnoli F.
        • Cordelli D.M.
        • Gasparre O.
        • Calonaci F.
        • Filardi G.
        • Merola A.
        • Petraglia F.
        Is an excessive number of prenatal echographies a risk for fetal growth?.
        Early Hum Dev. 2005; 81: 689-693
        • Bello S.O.
        How we may be missing some harmful effects of ultrasound–A hypothesis.
        Med Hypotheses. 2006; 67: 765-767
        • Bly S.
        • Van den Hof M.C.
        Obstetric ultrasound biological effects and safety.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005; 27: 572-580
        • Campbell S.
        • Reading A.E.
        • Cox D.N.
        • Sledmere M.
        • Mooney R.
        • Chudleigh T.
        • Beedle J.
        • Ruddick H.
        Ultrasound scanning in pregnancy: The short-term psychological effects of early real-time scans.
        J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 1982; 1-2: 57-61
      1. Christiansen SB. The precautionary principle: History and origins. In: O'Riordan T, Cameron J, (eds): Interpreting the precautionary principle. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.; 1994.

        • Chudleigh T.
        Scanning for pleasure.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 14: 369-371
        • Church C.C.
        • Miller M.W.
        Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound.
        Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007; 93: 331-353
        • Dalecki D.
        Mechanical bioeffects of ultrasound.
        Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004; 6: 229-248
        • Doubilet P.M.
        Entertainment ultrasound.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24 (discussion 253): 251-253
        • Edwards M.J.
        • Saunders R.D.
        • Shiota K.
        Effects of heat on embryos and foetuses.
        Int J Hyperthermia. 2003; 19: 295-324
        • Ellman L.M.
        • Sunstein C.R.
        Hormesis, the precautionary principle, and legal regulation.
        Hum Exp Toxicol. 2004; 23: 601-611
        • European Committee for Medical Ultrasound Safety
        Thermal teratology.
        Eur J Ultrasound. 1999; 9: 281-283
        • Fetal Fotos
        Superior ultrasound. Public education. Ultrasound safety [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed April 25, 2008)
        • First Look Sonogram
        Q & A. Is it safe? [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed April 24, 2008)
        • Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
        Center for devices and radiological health: 501(k) guide for measuring and reporting acoustic output of diagnostic ultrasound medical devices.
        ([document on the Internet]; 1985, last updated May 29, 2009. Available at:) (Accessed May 30, 2009)
        • Geddes Keepsake Prenatal Ultrasound Images
        General ultrasound frequently asked questions from patients. Is ultrasound safe? [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 20, 2007)
        • Gilbert S.G.
        Ethical, legal, and social issues: Our children's future.
        Neurotoxicology. 2005; 26: 521-530
        • Goldstein B.D.
        • Carruth R.S.
        Implications of the precautionary principle: Is it a threat to science?.
        Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004; 17: 153-161
        • Graham Jr., J.M.
        • Edwards M.J.
        Teratogen update: Gestational effects of maternal hyperthermia due to febrile illnesses and resultant patterns of defects in humans.
        Teratology. 1998; 58: 209-221
        • Greene N.
        • Platt L.D.
        Nonmedical use of ultrasound: greater harm than good?.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24: 123-125
        • Gressens P.
        • Huppi P.S.
        Are prenatal ultrasounds safe for the developing brain?.
        Pediatr Res. 2007; 61: 265-266
        • Holland C.K.
        • Deng C.X.
        • Apfel R.E.
        • Alderman J.L.
        • Fernandez L.A.
        • Taylor K.J.
        Direct evidence of cavitation in vivo from diagnostic ultrasound.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996; 22: 917-925
        • Horder M.M.
        • Barnett S.B.
        • Vella G.J.
        • Edwards M.J.
        • Wood A.K.
        Ultrasound-induced temperature increase in guinea-pig fetal brain in utero: Third-trimester gestation.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998; 24: 1501-1510
      2. Ibarreta D, Swan S. The DES story: Long-term consequences of prenatal exposure. In: Harremoes P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B (eds): Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental issue report #22. 2002 Copenhagen, European Environmental Agency: 84–92.

        • International Organization for Standardization
        Medical devices–Application of risk management to medical devices.
        (ISO-14971) Switzerland, Geneva2007
        • James W.H.
        Teratogenetic properties of thalidomide.
        Br Med J. 1965; 2: 1064
        • Ji E.K.
        • Pretorius D.H.
        • Newton R.
        • Uyan K.
        • Hull A.D.
        • Hollenbach K.
        • Nelson T.R.
        Effects of ultrasound on maternal-fetal bonding: A comparison of two- and three-dimensional imaging.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 25: 473-477
        • Keiding N.
        • Budtz-Jorgensen E.
        The precautionary principle and statistical approaches to uncertainty.
        Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004; 17: 147-151
        • Lierman S.
        • Veuchelen L.
        The optimisation approach of ALARA in nuclear practice: An early application of the precautionary principle. Scientific uncertainty versus legal uncertainty.
        Water Sci Technol. 2005; 52: 81-86
        • Lilienfeld A.M.
        • Lilienfeld D.E.
        John Snow, the Broad Street pump and modern epidemiology.
        Int J Epidemiol. 1984; 13: 376-378
        • Marsal K.
        The output display standard: Has it missed its target?.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 25: 211-214
        • Miller M.W.
        • Brayman A.A.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        Obstetric ultrasonography: A biophysical consideration of patient safety–The “rules” have changed.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 179: 241-254
        • Miller M.W.
        • Miller H.E.
        • Church C.C.
        A new perspective on hyperthermia-induced birth defects: The role of activation energy and its relation to obstetric ultrasound.
        J Therm Biol. 2005; 30: 400-409
        • Miller M.W.
        • Nyborg W.L.
        • Dewey W.C.
        • Edwards M.J.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        • Brayman A.A.
        Hyperthermic teratogenicity, thermal dose and diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy: Implications of new standards on tissue heating.
        Int J Hyperthermia. 2002; 18: 361-384
        • Montague P.
        The precautionary principle in a nutshell. [document on the Internet].
        (Available form) (Accessed November 2, 2008)
      3. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Implementation of the principle ofas low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) for medical and dental personnel. Report No. 107. Bethesda, MD, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1990.

      4. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound: II. Criteria based on all known mechanisms. Report No. 140. Bethesda, MD, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2002.

      5. National Electrical Manufacturers Association and American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Standard for real-time display of thermal and mechanical acoustic output indices on diagnostic ultrasound devices. NEMA Standards Publication UD 3-2004, NEMA, Rosslyn, VA and AIUM, Laurel, MD, 1992.

        • National Institute of Health
        NIH consensus development conference: The use of diagnostic ultrasound imaging in pregnancy. Vol 5. US Government Printing Office, No 1. Washington, DC1984
        • Newnham J.P.
        • Doherty D.A.
        • Kendall G.E.
        • Zubrick S.R.
        • Landau L.L.
        • Stanley F.J.
        Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: Follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2004; 364: 2038-2044
        • Nyborg W.L.
        Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part II: General review.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001; 27: 301-333
        • O'Brien Jr., W.D.
        Ultrasound-biophysics mechanisms.
        Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007; 93: 212-255
      6. O'Brien WD, Siddiqi TA. Obstetric sonography: The output display standard and ultrasound bioeffects. Sonography in obstetrics and gynecology-principles and practice. Fleischer AC, Manning FA, Jeanty P, Romero R. (Eds) New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001:29–48.

        • Pretorius D.H.
        • Gattu S.
        • Ji E.K.
        • Hollenbach K.
        • Newton R.
        • Hull A.
        • Carmona S.
        • D'Agostini D.
        • Nelson T.R.
        Pre-examination and postexamination assessment of parental-fetal bonding in patients undergoing 3-/4-dimensional obstetric ultrasonography.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2006; 25: 1411-1421
        • Rados C.
        FDA cautions against ultrasound ‘keepsake’ images. [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 30, 2007)
        • Resnik D.B.
        The precautionary principle and medical decision making.
        J Med Philos. 2004; 29: 281-299
        • Rogan W.J.
        • Ware J.H.
        Exposure to lead in children–How low is low enough?.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 1515-1516
        • Salvesen K.A.
        Epidemiological prenatal ultrasound studies.
        Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007; 93: 295-300
        • Sandin P.
        Dimensions of the precautionary principle.
        Human Ecological Risk Assess. 1999; 5: 889-907
        • Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN)
        The wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. [document on the Internet].
        (Available at) (Accessed August 2, 2007)
        • Sheiner E.
        • Freeman J.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        Acoustic output as measured by mechanical and thermal indices during routine obstetric ultrasound examinations.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24: 1665-1670
        • Sheiner E.
        • Hackmon R.
        • Shoham-Vardi I.
        • Pombar X.
        • Hussey M.J.
        • Strassner H.T.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        A comparison between acoustic output indices in 2-D and 3-D/4-D ultrasound in obstetrics.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 29: 326-328
        • Sheiner E.
        • Shoham-Vardi I.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        What do clinical users know regarding safety of ultrasound during pregnancy?.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2007; 26: 319-325
        • Sheiner E.
        • Shoham-Vardi I.
        • Hussey M.J.
        • Pombar X.
        • Strassner H.T.
        • Freeman J.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        First-trimester sonography: Is the fetus exposed to high levels of acoustic energy?.
        J Clin Ultrasound. 2007; 35: 245-249
        • Sheiner E.
        • Shoham-Vardi I.
        • Pombar X.
        • Hussey M.J.
        • Strassner H.T.
        • Abramowicz J.S.
        An increased thermal index can be achieved when performing Doppler studies in obstetric sonography.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2007; 26: 71-76
        • Siddiqi T.A.
        • O'Brien Jr., W.D.
        • Meyer R.A.
        • Sullivan J.M.
        • Miodovnik M.
        In situ human obstetrical ultrasound exposimetry: Estimates of derating factors for each of three different tissue models.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1995; 21: 379-391
        • Siddiqi T.A.
        • Plessinger M.A.
        • Meyer R.A.
        • Woods J.R.
        Bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound on auditory function in the neonatal lamb.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990; 16: 621-625
        • Sikov M.R.
        Effect of ultrasound on development. Part 1: Introduction and studies in inframammalian species. Report of the bioeffects committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.
        J Ultrasound Med. 1986; 5: 577-583
        • Stijkel A.
        • Reijnders L.
        Implementation of the precautionary principle in standards for the workplace.
        Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52: 304-312
        • Stratmeyer M.E.
        • Christman C.L.
        Biological effects of ultrasound.
        Women Health. 1982; 7: 65-81
        • Sunstein C.R.
        The paralyzing principle. [document on the Internet].
        (Available at) (Accessed August 22, 2007)
        • Tarantal A.F.
        • Hendrickx A.G.
        Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): I. Neonatal/infant observations.
        Teratology. 1989; 39: 137-147
        • Tarantal A.F.
        • Hendrickx A.G.
        Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): II. Growth and behavior during the first year.
        Teratology. 1989; 39: 149-162
        • Taylor K.J.
        A prudent approach to ultrasound imaging of the fetus and newborn.
        Birth. 1990; 17 (223; discussion 221–222): 218-221
        • Toms D.A.
        Safety issues in fetal ultrasound. [Personal website on the internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 19, 2008)
        • Tubiana M.
        Conclusions. The precautionary principle: Its advantages and risks.
        Bull Acad Natl Med. 2000; 184: 969-993
      7. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. The precautionary principle. [document on the Internet];1993. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2008.

        • Vineis P.
        Scientific basis for the precautionary principle.
        Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005; 207: 658-662
        • Weiss N.S.
        When can the result of epidemiologic research not eliminate the need to invoke the precautionary principle?.
        J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2006; 6: 16-18
        • WFUMB
        WFUMB symposium on safety and standardization in medical ultrasound: Issues and recommendations regarding thermal mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1992; 18: 748
        • Whelan E.M.
        Can too much safety be hazardous? A critical look at the “precautionary principle” [document on the Internet].
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 13, 2008)
        • Ziskin M.C.
        • Barnett S.B.
        Ultrasound and the developing central nervous system.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001; 27: 875-876