Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasound Safety and Infection Control

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ultrasound Program Management

  • 1291 Accesses

Abstract

Ultrasound is often assumed to be completely safe and to deliver no radiation. Ultrasound does have bioeffects, which each user should know. Minimizing exposure to vulnerable tissues should be part of daily practice to ensure compliance with safe practice, and national guidelines. Infection control is a critical component and strategies have to be adopted to ensure disinfection and facilitate compliance.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749–57. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0909487.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nelson TR, Fowlkes JB, Abramowicz JS, Church CC. Ultrasound biosafety considerations for the practicing sonographer and sonologist. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:139–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cibull SL, Harris GR, Nell DM. Trends in diagnostic ultrasound acoustic output from data reported to the US food and drug administration for device indications that include fetal applications. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(11):1921–32. doi:10.7863/ultra.32.11.1921.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. United States Food and Drugs Administration. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—Information for manufacturers seeking marketing clearance of diagnostic ultrasound systems and transducers. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lee W, Garra B, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM technical bulletin. How to interpret the ultrasound output display standard for higher acoustic output diagnostic ultrasound devices: version 2. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(5):723–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Electronics Manufacturers Association, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Standard for real-time display of thermal and mechanical acoustic output indices on diagnostic ultrasound equipment, Revision 2. January 9AD:1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  7. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Medical ultrasound safety. 3rd ed. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 2014, pp. 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  8. OBrien WD, Deng CX, Harris GR, et al. The risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects thermal effects. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:517–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abramowicz JS, Barnett SB, Duck FA, Edmonds PD, Hynynen KH, Ziskin MC. Fetal thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:541–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mr T, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, et al. Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy WHO systematic review of the literature and meta analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Church CC, Carstensen EL, Nyborg WL, Carson PL, Frizzell LA, Bailey MR. Nonthermal mechanisms the risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:565–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stratmeyer ME, Greenleaf JF, Dalecki D, Salvesen KA. Fetal ultrasound mechanical effects. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:597–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sheiner E, Abramowicz JS. Clinical end users worldwide show poor knowledge regarding safety issues of ultrasound during pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:488–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bagley J, Thomas K, DiGiacinto D. Safety practices of sonographers and their knowledge of the biologic effects of sonography. J Diagn Med Sonography. 2011;27:252–61. doi:10.1177/8756479311424431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Akhtar W, Arain MA, Ali A, et al. Ultrasound biosafety during pregnancy: what do operators know in the developing world?: national survey findings from pakistan. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(7):981–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Houston LE, Allsworth J, Macones GA. Ultrasound is safe… right?: resident and maternal-fetal medicine fellow knowledge regarding obstetric ultrasound safety. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(1):21–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. World Federation of Ultrasond in Medicine and Biology. WFUMB/ISUOG statement on the safe use of doppler ultrasound during 11–14 week scans (or earlier in pregnancy). Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(3):373. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.11.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Statement on measurement of fetal heart rate. 2011:1–1. http://www.aium.org/officialStatements/43.

  19. Vrablik ME, Snead GR, Minnigan HJ, Kirschner JM, Emmett TW, Seupaul RA. The diagnostic accuracy of bedside ocular ultrasonography for the diagnosis of retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(2):199–203.e1. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.02.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lichtenstein D. Lung ultrasound in acute respiratory failure an introduction to the BLUE-protocol. Minerva Anestesiol. 2009;75(5):313–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meltzer RS, Adsumelli R, Risher WH, et al. Lack of lung hemorrhage in humans after intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography with ultrasound exposure conditions similar to those causing lung hemorrhage in laboratory animals. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1998;11(1):57–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Conclusions regarding epidemiology for obstetric ultrasound. 2010:1–1. http://www.aium.org/officialStatements/16.

  23. American College of Emergency Physicians. Emergency ultrasound guidelines. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(4):550–70. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.12.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. American College of Emergency Physicians Guidance for Line Model US Scanning in Educational and conference settings http://www.acep.org/ultrasound-section-microsite/guidance for live models-us-scanning in educational-end-conference settings. Accessed 30 July 2017.

  25. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008. 2015;1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. AIUM Cleaning Guidelines 2014. 2015. pp. 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008. 2010;1–158.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rooks VJ, Yancey MK, Elg SA, Brueske L. Comparison of probe sheaths for endovaginal sonography. Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jan;87(1):27–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hignett M, Claman P. High rates of perforation are found in endovaginal ultrasound probe covers before and after oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilizationembryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995 Oct;12(9):606–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fritz S, Hust MH, Ochs C, Gratwohl I, Staiger M, Braun B. Use of a latex cover sheath for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of regular disinfection of the echoscope? Clin Cardiol. 1993 Oct;16(10):737–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Casalegno J-S, Le Bail CK, Eibach D, Valdeyron M-L, Lamblin G, Jacquemoud H, et al. High risk HPV contamination of endocavity vaginal ultrasound probes: an underestimated route of nosocomial infection? PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. M’Zali F, Bounizra C, Leroy S, Mekki Y, Quentin-Noury C, Kann M. Persistence of microbial contamination on transvaginal ultrasound probes despite low-level disinfection procedure. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kac G, Podglajen I, Si Mohamed A, Rodi A, Grataloup C, Meyer G. Evaluation of ultraviolet C for disinfection of endocavitary ultrasound transducers persistently contaminated despite probe covers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(2):165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Frazee BW, Fahimi J, Lambert L, Nagdev A. Emergency department ultrasonographic probe contaminationand experimental model of probe disinfection. YMEM. American College of Emergency Physicians; 2011;1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Muradali D, Gold WL, Phillips A, Wilson S. Can ultrasound probes and coupling gel be a source of nosocomial infection in patients undergoing sonography? An in vivo and in vitro study. AJR. 1995;164(6):1521–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Rourke M, Levan P, Khan T. Current use of ultrasound transmission gel for transesophageal echocardiogram examinations: a survey of cardiothoracic anesthesiology fellowship directors. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(5):1208–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Safety Communication: Bacteria found in other-sonic generic ultrasound transmission gel poses risk of infection. Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity (COCA). CDC Emergency communication System. April 20, 2012. Accessed 5 Jan 2017 http://emergency.cdc.gov/coca/reminders/2012/pdf/ClinicalReminder_UltraSoundGel_04_20_2012.pdf.

  38. Serious risk of infection from ultrasound and medical gels—revision. Health Canada. December 14, 2004. Accessed 5 Jan 2017 http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2004/14289a-eng.php.

  39. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Guidelines for cleaning and preparing external- and internal-use ultrasound probes between patients, safe handling, and use of ultrasound coupling gel http://www.aium.org/officialStatements/57. Accessed 31 May 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgment

Dr. J. Brian Fowlkes for his assistance with reviewing and editing the bioeffects data.

Dr. Andreas Dewitz for his donation of figures for the chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Neurosciences Service Line, Christiana Care Health System, Christiana Hospital, Newark, DE, USA

    Jason T. Nomura MD, FACEP, FACP, FAHA

  2. Emergency Ultrasound, Department of Emergency Medicine, Highland General Hospital, Oakland, CA, USA

    Arun D. Nagdev MD

Authors
  1. Jason T. Nomura MD, FACEP, FACP, FAHA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arun D. Nagdev MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason T. Nomura MD, FACEP, FACP, FAHA .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

    Vivek S. Tayal

  2. Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Francis Hospital, Columbus Georgia, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

    Michael Blaivas

  3. Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois, USA

    Troy R Foster

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nomura, J.T., Nagdev, A.D. (2018). Ultrasound Safety and Infection Control. In: Tayal, V., Blaivas, M., Foster, T. (eds) Ultrasound Program Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63143-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63143-1_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63141-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63143-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation