Next-generation Monitoring in Obstetrics: Assessing the Accuracy of Non-piezo Portable Ultrasound Technology

Overview

Journal Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2024 Jul 20

PMID 39032032

Authors

Ruben Ploger

Charlotte Behning

Adeline Walter

Jorge Jimenez Cruz

Ulrich Gembruch

Brigitte Strizek

Florian Recker

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: The emergence of handheld ultrasound devices capable of connecting to cell phones or tablets heralds a significant advancement in medical technology, particularly within the field of obstetrics. These devices offer the promise of immediate bedside ultrasound examinations, potentially revolutionizing patient care by enabling fetal assessments in diverse settings.

Material And Methods: This prospective study aimed to validate the reliability of non-piezo, chip-based handheld ultrasound devices in clinical obstetric practice. Conducted in a university hospital obstetric ward, the study included 100 pregnant women between 17 and 41 weeks of gestation. Participants underwent ultrasound examinations using both conventional and portable point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) devices to compare the accuracy in estimating fetal weight and other parameters, such as cardiac activity, fetal presentation, placental location, and amniotic fluid volume. The reliability and agreement between the devices were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and Pearson correlation coefficients.

Results: The results show a near-perfect agreement (0.98) and correlation (r = 0.98, p < 0.001) for estimated fetal weight and most biometry measurements between the two types of ultrasound devices, with slight deviations in head circumference and amniotic fluid index measurements. Subgroup analysis revealed variations in agreement and correlation rates with higher BMI and advanced gestational age, indicating areas for further refinement.

Conclusions: These findings affirm the high reliability of handheld ultrasound devices for basic obstetric ultrasound evaluations, supporting their integration into daily clinical practice. This technology improves the flexibility and immediacy of prenatal care, although further research is needed to optimize its application across patient populations and treatment settings.

Citing Articles

Medical student training with next-generation handheld ultrasound devices - hands on examination of fetal biometry in obstetrics.

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.

Diagnoses of postpartum urinary retention using next-generation non-piezo ultrasound technology: assessing the accuracy and benefits.

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.

Competency-based ultrasound curriculum for standardized training resident: a pre- and post-training evaluation.

Jiang Z, Wang J, Chen X, Li Y, Ni D, Zhu J BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):1516.

PMID: 39709401 PMC: 11663331. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06560-2.

Innovations in ultrasound training in obstetrics.

Wittek A, Strizek B, Recker F Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; .

PMID: 39404870 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07777-8.

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.

References

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Recker F, Weber E, Strizek B, Gembruch U, Westerway S, Dietrich C . Point-of-care ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021; 303(4):871-876. PMC: 7985120. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-05972-5. View

Bledsoe A, Zimmerman J . Ultrasound: The New Stethoscope (Point-of-Care Ultrasound). Anesthesiol Clin. 2021; 39(3):537-553. DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2021.03.011. View

Magann E, Ounpraseuth S, Chauhan S, Ranganathan A, Dajani N, Bergstrom J . Correlation of ultrasound estimated with dye-determined or directly measured amniotic fluid volume revisited. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014; 79(1):46-9. DOI: 10.1159/000365088. View

Rothberg J, Ralston T, Rothberg A, Martin J, Zahorian J, Alie S . Ultrasound-on-chip platform for medical imaging, analysis, and collective intelligence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(27). PMC: 8271708. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2019339118. View

Hadlock F, Harrist R, Sharman R, Deter R, Park S . Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151(3):333-7. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4. View

Campbell S . A short history of sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014; 5(3):213-29. PMC: 3987368. View

Ploger R, Behning C, Walter A, Jimenez Cruz J, Gembruch U, Strizek B . Next-generation monitoring in obstetrics: Assessing the accuracy of non-piezo portable ultrasound technology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024; 103(10):2031-2041. PMC: 11426206. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14922. View

Kozuki N, Mullany L, Khatry S, Ghimire R, Paudel S, Blakemore K . Accuracy of Home-Based Ultrasonographic Diagnosis of Obstetric Risk Factors by Primary-Level Health Care Workers in Rural Nepal. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(3):604-612. PMC: 5028110. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001558. View

10.

Salomon L, Alfirevic Z, da Silva Costa F, Deter R, Figueras F, Ghi T . ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53(6):715-723. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20272. View

11.

Kahler C, Schramm T, Bald R, Gembruch U, Merz E, Eichhorn K . Updated DEGUM Quality Requirements for the Basic Prenatal Screening Ultrasound Examination (DEGUM Level I) between 18 + 0 and 21 + 6 weeks of gestation. Ultraschall Med. 2020; 41(5):499-503. DOI: 10.1055/a-1018-1752. View

12.

Hallak M, Kirshon B, Smith E, Cotton D . Amniotic fluid index. Gestational age-specific values for normal human pregnancy. J Reprod Med. 1993; 38(11):853-6. View

13.

Sayasneh A, Preisler J, Smith A, Saso S, Naji O, Abdallah Y . Do pocket-sized ultrasound machines have the potential to be used as a tool to triage patients in obstetrics and gynecology?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40(2):145-50. DOI: 10.1002/uog.11184. View

14.

Koo T, Li M . A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155-63. PMC: 4913118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. View

15.

Galjaard S, Baeck S, Ameye L, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Devlieger R . Use of a pocket-sized ultrasound machine (PUM) for routine examinations in the third trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 44(1):64-8. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13285. View

16.

Sarris I, Ioannou C, Chamberlain P, Ohuma E, Roseman F, Hoch L . Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 39(3):266-73. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10082. View

17.

Moore C, Copel J . Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(8):749-57. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra0909487. View

18.

Merz E, Eichhorn K, von Kaisenberg C, Schramm T . [Updated quality requirements regarding secondary differentiated ultrasound examination in prenatal diagnostics (= DEGUM level II) in the period from 18 + 0 to 21 + 6 weeks of gestation]. Ultraschall Med. 2012; 33(6):593-6. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325500. View

19.

Leggett C, Naqvi M, Esakoff T, Diniz M, Wong M . Incorporating personal-device-based point-of-care ultrasound into obstetric care: a validation study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 226(4):552.e1-552.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.031. View

20.

Baribeau Y, Sharkey A, Chaudhary O, Krumm S, Fatima H, Mahmood F . Handheld Point-of-Care Ultrasound Probes: The New Generation of POCUS. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020; 34(11):3139-3145. PMC: 7340048. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.07.004. View