Seeds J W
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Virginia/Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Dec;39(4):814-30. doi: 10.1097/00003081-199612000-00010.
The debate concerning the value of routine screening ultrasound in the low-risk patient continues. The most likely benefits are obstetrical, with confirmation of dates, detection of multiple gestation, baseline growth data, and location of the placenta being primary advantages gained from such an examination. The detection of the unexpected major fetal malformation has always been the least likely benefit of routine ultrasound. Furthermore, the majority of reports have been retrospective, uncontrolled, and too small to resolve the question. The RADIUS study was intended to solve these problems, but suffered from such intense selection that the final population for study had little need for medical care at all and little relevance to the average population. The rate of adverse outcomes among the control group was so low that few interventions would appear useful. Furthermore, the analysis of the RADIUS data appeared to suggest bias by underestimating the diagnostic sensitivity of ultrasound for major anomalies, and de-emphasizing those statistically significant obstetrical benefits that were recorded. An attempt at cost-benefit analysis by the RADIUS study misrepresented the cost of routine ultrasound by overestimating the size of the low-risk population, arbitrarily costing out two scans instead of one, and therefore overestimated the cost savings of omitting these examinations. Diagnostic sensitivity of the screening obstetrical ultrasound examination appears to be highest in high-risk patients examined by highly specialized ad experienced personnel that may be of limited availability. diagnostic sensitivity may be quite good, however, even in low-risk patients with a basic or routine examination if recognized guidelines for content are followed and referral to experienced referral resources for unclear or suspicious images is liberally practiced. Optimal service and minimum liability exposure will result if the following guidelines are followed: 1. The obstetric population should be carefully screened for historical or clinical risk factors that might indicate increased probability of fetal abnormality. Identification of such increased risk should cause consideration of referral. 2. The screening ultrasound examination should be methodical and complete and include examination of each of several recommended scanplane views to maximize diagnostic sensitivity. 3. The performance of a complete and methodical examination should be carefully documented with both descriptive text and image records to show that a standard of care service was provided. 4. Referral for second opinion should be easily considered and easily obtained in the case of any suspicious finding. Should every obstetrical patient have an ultrasound examination? Only if it is competently performed, properly recorded, and if the patient is aware of appropriate goals and limitations. The ideal gestational age is between 18 and 22 completed weeks.
关于低风险患者常规筛查超声的价值的争论仍在继续。最可能的益处是产科方面的,确定孕周、检测多胎妊娠、获取基线生长数据以及确定胎盘位置是这种检查的主要优势。检测出意外的严重胎儿畸形一直是常规超声最不可能带来的益处。此外,大多数报告都是回顾性的、无对照的,而且样本量太小,无法解决这个问题。RADIUS研究旨在解决这些问题,但由于选择标准过于严格,最终的研究人群几乎根本不需要医疗护理,与普通人群几乎没有相关性。对照组中不良结局的发生率非常低,以至于几乎没有干预措施看起来是有用的。此外,对RADIUS数据的分析似乎存在偏差,低估了超声对主要异常的诊断敏感性,并淡化了那些有统计学意义的产科益处记录。RADIUS研究进行的成本效益分析通过高估低风险人群的规模、随意将两次扫描而非一次扫描计入成本,从而错误地呈现了常规超声的成本,因此高估了省略这些检查所节省的成本。筛查性产科超声检查的诊断敏感性在由高度专业化且经验丰富的人员进行检查的高风险患者中似乎最高,而这些人员可能数量有限。然而,如果遵循公认的检查内容指南,并在遇到不清楚或可疑图像时广泛转诊至经验丰富的转诊资源,即使是进行基本或常规检查的低风险患者,诊断敏感性也可能相当不错。如果遵循以下指南,将能提供最佳服务并使责任风险降至最低:1. 应仔细筛查产科人群中可能表明胎儿异常概率增加的历史或临床风险因素。识别出这种风险增加应促使考虑转诊。2. 筛查超声检查应系统且完整,包括对几个推荐扫描平面视图中的每一个进行检查,以最大限度提高诊断敏感性。3. 完整且系统的检查过程应通过描述性文字和图像记录仔细记录,以表明提供了符合护理标准的服务。4. 对于任何可疑发现,应易于考虑并获得二次诊断意见。每个产科患者都应该进行超声检查吗?只有在检查操作熟练、记录妥善且患者了解适当的目标和局限性的情况下才应该。理想的孕周是在孕18至22足周之间。