Chan Lin W, Ting Yuen H, Lao Terence T, Chau Macy M C, Fung Tak Y, Leung Tak Y, Sahota Daljit S, Lau Tze K
Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011 Sep;24(9):1173-5. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2010.545931. Epub 2011 Jan 13.
To investigate whether three-dimensional (3D) technology offers any advantage over two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound in fetal biometric measurement training.
Ten midwives with no hands-on experience in ultrasound were randomized to receive training on 2D or 3D ultrasound fetal biometry assessment. Midwives were taught how to obtain fetal biometric measurements (biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL)) by a trainer. Subsequently, each midwife measured the parameters on another 10 fetuses. The same set of measurements was repeated by the trainer. The percentage deviation between the midwives' and the trainer's measurements was determined and compared between training groups. Time required for completion was recorded. Frozen images were reviewed by another sonographer to assess the image quality using a standardized scoring system.
The median time for the complete set of measurements was significantly shorter in the 2D than in 3D group (13.4 min versus 17.8 min, P = 0.03). The mean percentage deviations did not reach statistical significance between the two groups except for FL (3.83% in 2D group versus 2.23% in 3D group (P = 0.046)). There were no significant differences in the quality scores.
This study showed that the only demonstrable advantage of 3D ultrasound was a slightly more accurate measurement of FL, at the expense of a significantly longer time required.
探讨在胎儿生物测量训练中，三维（3D）技术相较于二维（2D）超声是否具有任何优势。
将10名无超声实践经验的助产士随机分为两组，分别接受二维或三维超声胎儿生物测量评估的培训。由一名培训师教导助产士如何获取胎儿生物测量数据（双顶径（BPD）、头围（HC）、腹围（AC）和股骨长度（FL））。随后，每位助产士对另外10名胎儿进行参数测量。培训师重复进行相同的测量。确定助产士与培训师测量值之间的偏差百分比，并在两组培训之间进行比较。记录完成所需的时间。另一名超声检查人员使用标准化评分系统对冻结图像进行评估以确定图像质量。
二维组完成整套测量的中位时间显著短于三维组（13.4分钟对17.8分钟，P = 0.03）。除股骨长度外，两组之间的平均偏差百分比未达到统计学显著性（二维组为3.83%，三维组为2.23%（P = 0.046））。质量评分无显著差异。
本研究表明，三维超声唯一可证明的优势是对股骨长度的测量略更准确，但代价是所需时间显著更长。
