Use of a Pocket-sized Ultrasound Machine (PUM) for Routine Examinations in the Third Trimester of Pregnancy
Overview
Affiliations
Objectives: To evaluate the application of a pocket-sized ultrasound machine (PUM) in a routine antenatal third-trimester scan compared with a high-specification ultrasound machine (HSUM).
Methods: This was an observational cohort study of 53 unselected women who came for their routine third-trimester ultrasound scan. The first scan was performed by an experienced ultrasonographer on an HSUM for fetal growth, fetal wellbeing and placental location. A second experienced operator performed the measurements on the PUM. Both operators were blinded to the other's findings and measurement results.
Results: Fifty-one patients were eligible and scanned at a median gestational age of 31 + 1 (range, 27 + 2 to 36 + 0) weeks. Mean pregestational body mass index was 22.9 ± 3.1 (range, 17.6-35.7) kg/m(2) . In the comparison between measurements made using the PUM and HSUM, perfect agreement was found for fetal position, fetal bladder and stomach visualization (all κ 1.0) and very good agreement was found for placental position (κ 0.86). Measurements of deepest vertical pocket correlated moderately (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.38 (95% CI, 0.12-0.59); Bland-Altman bias, 2.43 (95% limits of agreement (LoA), -22.65 to 27.51)). For fetal growth measurements there was very good agreement for biparietal diameter (ICC, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), Bland-Altman bias, -1.06 (95% LoA, -5.07 to 2.95)), and good agreement for femur length (ICC, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.48-0.79), Bland-Altman bias 0.56 (95% LoA, -5.97 to 7.08)) and transcerebellar diameter (ICC, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.78), Bland-Altman bias, -0.84 (95% LoA, -7.77 to 6.09)).
Conclusion: A battery-driven PUM can be used in third-trimester obstetrics for routine assessment of fetal growth (biparietal diameter, transcerebellar diameter and femur length) and for assessment of fetal wellbeing.
Ploger R, Matschl J, Walter A, Gembruch U, Strizek B, Behning C BMC Med Educ. 2025; 25(1):103.
PMID: 39844144 PMC: 11752848. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-025-06683-0.
Ploger R, Behning C, Walter A, Gembruch U, Strizek B, Recker F Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):31844.
PMID: 39738356 PMC: 11685570. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-83160-6.
Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of non-piezo portable ultrasound devices in postpartum care.
Ploger R, Behning C, Walter A, Wittek A, Gembruch U, Strizek B Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; .
PMID: 39365472 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07744-3.
Ploger R, Behning C, Walter A, Jimenez Cruz J, Gembruch U, Strizek B Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024; 103(10):2031-2041.
PMID: 39032032 PMC: 11426206. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14922.
Accuracy of portable ultrasound machines for obstetric biometry.
Rittenhouse K, Vwalika B, Sebastiao Y, Pokaprakarn T, Sindano N, Shah H Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 63(6):772-780.
PMID: 38011589 PMC: 11128480. DOI: 10.1002/uog.27541.