Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principles of 3D Ultrasound

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine

  • 2050 Accesses

Abstract

Within the last few years, 3D ultrasound (US) has become an approved tool for use in the field of in vitro fertilization (IVF). An increasing number of publications within the last decade have demonstrated that the application of 3D sonography in medicine is superior to the conventional 2D technique. Therefore, it is very likely that it will play an increasingly important role in assisted reproductive techniques (ART) such as follicle monitoring or in the detection of pelvic pathologies. However, as 3D ultrasound is still a new tool, there is a lack of standardization. Moreover, many aspects of this innovative technique and its novel instruments are often not well understood by many operators. Therefore, 3D US application often lags behind its scope. This chapter will address the basic principles and techniques for producing 3D US images and how to optimize image quality. We will discuss its technical capabilities as well as its limitations, such as artifacts due to improper calibration. In addition, a short list of clinical applications for this technique will be presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mahadevan M, Chalder K, Wiseman D, Leader A, Taylor PJ. Evidence for an absence of deleterious effects of ultrasound on human oocytes. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1987;4:277–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E, Mazor M. Ultrasound in obstetrics: a review of safety. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;101:15–8. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brinkley JF, Muramatsu SK, McCallum WD, Popp RL. In vitro evaluation of an ultrasonic three-dimensional imaging and volume system. Ultrason Imaging. 1982;4:126–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rinck PA, Petersen SB. Muller RN [NMR-whole body tomography: a new imaging method]. Radiologe. 1983;23:341–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vannier MW, Marsh JL, Warren JO. Three-dimensional CT reconstruction images for craniofacial surgical planning and evaluation. Radiology. 1984;150:179–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lees W. Ultrasound imaging in three and four dimensions. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2001;22:85–105. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baba K, Satoh K. Development of a system for ultrasonic fetal three-dimensional reconstruction. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn. 1986;38:1385.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baba K, Satch K, Sakamoto S, Oka T, Shiego I. Development of an ultrasonic system for three-dimensional reconstruction of the fetus. J Perinat Med. 1989;17:19–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Von Ramm OT, Smith SW. Three-dimensional imaging system.1987. United States Patent 4694434. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4694434.html. Last accessed on 23 May 2013.

  10. OBGYN.NET. Kretz museum tour – the history of ultrasound. http://hcp.obgyn.net/conference-insider/display/article/1760982/1953224. Last accessed on 23 May 2013.

  11. Brandl H, Gritzky A, Haizinger M. 3D ultrasound: a dedicated system. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:331–3. Review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alcazar JL. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecological patients. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;2:10–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Miller DL. Safety assurance in obstetrical ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2008;29:156–64. Review.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Merz E. 3D ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. Curr Obstet Gynecol. 1999;9:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang H, Banovac F, White A, Cleary K. Freehand 3D ultrasound calibration using an electromagnetically tracked needle. Available from: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1276235. Last Accessed on 23 May 2013.

  16. Fenster A, Downey DB, Cardinal HN. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46:R67–99. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dietz HP, Shek KL. Tomographic ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor: which levels matter most? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:698–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruano R. Recent advances in sonographic imaging of fetal thoracic structures. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2005;2:217–22. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jouannic JM, Rosenblatt J, Demaria F, Jacobs R, Aubry MC, Benifla JL. Contribution of three-dimensional volume contrast imaging to the sonographic assessment of the fetal uterus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:567–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Benacerraf BR. Inversion mode display of 3D sonography: applications in obstetric and gynecologic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:965–71. Review.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Weber G, Merz E, Bahlmann F, Macchiella D. Ultrasound assessment of ovarian tumors–comparison between transvaginal 3D technique and conventional 2-dimensional vaginal ultrasonography. Ultraschall Med. 1997;18:26–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell S. The potential diagnostic capabilities of three-dimensional surface rendering. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;14:148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Turan S, Turan O, Baschat AA. Three- and four-dimensional fetal echocardiography. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009;25:361–72. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Adriaanse BM, Tromp CH, Simpson JM, Van Mieghem T, Kist WJ, Kuik DJ, Oepkes D, Van Vugt JM, Haak MC. Interobserver agreement in detailed prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease by telemedicine using four-dimensional ultrasound with spatiotemporal image correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:203–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hongmei W, Ying Z, Ailu C, Wei S. Novel application of four-dimensional sonography with B-flow imaging and spatiotemporal image correlation in the assessment of fetal congenital heart defects. Echocardiography. 2012;29:614–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yeo L, Romero R, Jodicke C, Oggè G, Lee W, Kusanovic JP, Vaisbuch E, Hassan S. Four-chamber view and ‘swing technique’ (FAST) echo: a novel and simple algorithm to visualize standard fetal echocardiographic planes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:423–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Merz E, Miric-Tesanic D, Welter C. Value of the electronic scalpel (cut mode) in the evaluation of the fetal face. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:564–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Powers J, Kremkau F. Medical ultrasound systems. Interface Focus. 2011;1:477–89.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Udupa JK. Three-dimensional visualization and analysis methodologies: a current perspective. Radiographics. 1999;19:783–806. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson TR, Pretorius DH, Lev-Toaff A, Bega G, Budorick NE, Hollenbach KA, Needleman L. Feasibility of performing a virtual patient examination using three-dimensional ultrasonographic data acquired at remote locations. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20:941–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Merz E, Abramowicz JS. 3D/4D ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: is it time for routine use? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55:336–51. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rizzo G, Pietrolucci M, Aiello E, Mammarella S, Bosi C, Arduini D. The role of three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of fetal congenital anomalies: a review. Minerva Ginecol. 2011;63:401–10. Review.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bulletti C, DE Ziegler D, Levi Setti P, Cicinelli E, Polli V, Stefanetti M. Myomas, pregnancy outcome, and in vitro fertilization. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1034:84–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:523–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rosendahl M, Ernst E, Rasmussen PE, Andersen CY. True ovarian volume is underestimated by two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound measurement. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:995–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vanderzwalmen P, Zech NH, Ectors F, Stecher A, Lejeune B, Vanderzwalmen S, Wirleitner B. Blastocyst transfer after aseptic vitrification of zygotes: an approach to overcome an impaired uterine environment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:591–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sladkevicius P, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G. Three-dimensional power Doppler imaging in the assessment of Fallopian tube patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:644–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Raine-Fenning NJ. Quantitative analysis of antral follicle number and size: a comparison of two-dimensional and automated three-dimensional ultrasound techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:354–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shaw SW, Hsieh TT, Hsu JJ, Lee CL, Cheng PJ. Measurement of nuchal volume in the first trimester down screening using three-dimensional ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Youssef A, Arcangeli T, Radico D, Contro E, Guasina F, Bellussi F, Maroni E, Morselli-Labate AM, Farina A, Pilu G, Pelusi G, Ghi T. Accuracy of fetal gender determination in the first trimester using three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:557–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jang M, Kim SM, Lyou CY, Choi BS, Choi SI, Kim JH. Differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules: comparison of 2- and 3- dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:197–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H. Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22:297–302. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Downey DB, Fenster A. Vascular imaging with a three-dimensional power Doppler system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:665–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Houck RC, Cooke JE, Gill EA. Live 3D echocardiography: a replacement for traditional 2D echocardiography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1092–106. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pooh RK, Kurjak A. 3D and 4D sonography and magnetic resonance in the assessment of normal and abnormal CNS development: alternative or complementary. J Perinat Med. 2011;39:3–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Centers Prof. Zech, Römerstrasse 2, Bregenz, 6900, Austria

    Maximilian Murtinger MD

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Graz, Römerstrasse 2, 6900, Bregenz, Austria

    Nicolas Herbert Zech MD

  3. IVF Centers Prof. Zech, Innsbrucker, Bundesstrasse 35, Salzburg, 5000, Austria

    Dietmar Spitzer MD

Authors
  1. Maximilian Murtinger MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dietmar Spitzer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas Herbert Zech MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Herbert Zech MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Laurel Stadtmauer

  2. Institute for Human Reproduction, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Ilan Tur-Kaspa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murtinger, M., Spitzer, D., Zech, N.H. (2014). Principles of 3D Ultrasound. In: Stadtmauer, L., Tur-Kaspa, I. (eds) Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9182-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9182-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9181-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-9182-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation