Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-obstetric Imaging in Pregnant Women

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Non-Obstetric Surgery During Pregnancy

Abstract

Preference should always be given to evaluations that provide the desired diagnostic information without the use of ionizing radiation when imaging pregnant patients who are uninjured. The healthcare provider should discuss the risks and benefits of the examination with the patient and obtain consent in cases that do not involve life-threatening trauma when ordering an imaging study that employs ionizing radiation or a MRI for a pregnant patient. While there are no documented adverse human fetal effects from diagnostic ultrasound, judicious use is advocated to keep fetal exposure as low as possible. The estimated fetal radiation dose should be kept as low as possible (below the cumulative threshold of 50 mGy) if an imaging evaluation that employs ionizing radiation must be used. Consideration should also be given to the number and type of imaging evaluations employing ionizing radiation a pregnant patient has already undergone during her current pregnancy, as these studies will contribute to the cumulative fetal radiation dose. Intravenous iodinated contrast administration is typically very useful for CT evaluations, especially for evaluation of traumatic injuries. Administration of intravenous paramagnetic contrast agents for MRI evaluations during pregnancy should only be considered when it is absolutely vital for patient management. Consultation with a diagnostic radiologist is helpful not only with choosing the appropriate imaging evaluation but also with tailoring study parameters to decrease radiation exposure while still maintaining the diagnostic integrity of the exam.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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. ACR–SPR practice parameter for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant adolescents and women with ionizing radiation. Resolution 39. [Internet]. American College of Radiology. 2014 [cited 23 October 2017]. http://www.acr.org/~/media/9e2ed55531fc4b4fa53ef3b6d3b25df8.pdf.

  2. Kanal E, Barkovich A, Bell C, Borgstede J, Bradley W, Froelich J, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(3):501–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. International Commission on Radiologic Protection. Biological effects after prenatal irradiation (embryo and fetus). IRCP publication no. 90. New York, NY: Pergamon; 2003. p. 153–82.

    Google Scholar 

  4. De Santis M, Di Gianantonio E, Straface G, Cavaliere A, Caruso A, Schiavon F, et al. Ionizing radiations in pregnancy and teratogenesis: a review of literature. Reprod Toxicol. 2005;20(3):323–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. ACOG Committee opinion #299: guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):647.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wagner L, Lester R, Saldana L. Exposure of the pregnant patient to diagnostic radiations. Medical Physics Pub: Madison, WI; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Parry RA, Glaze SA, Archer BR. Typical patient radiation doses in diagnostic radiology. Radiographics. 1999;19:1289–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McCollough C, Schueler B, Atwell T, Braun N, Regner D, Brown D. Radiation exposure and pregnancy: when should we be concerned? Radiographics. 2007;27(4):909–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Osei E, Faulkner K. Fetal doses from radiological examinations. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(860):773–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rice J. Prenatal susceptibility to carcinogenesis by xenobiotic substances including vinyl chloride. Environ Health Perspect. 1981;41:179–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Raptis C, Mellnick V, Raptis D, Kitchin D, Fowler K, Lubner M, et al. Imaging of trauma in the pregnant patient. Radiographics. 2014;34(3):748–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen M, Coakley F, Kaimal A, Laros R. Guidelines for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging use during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(2, Part 1):333–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen C, Goodman L. Fetal risk in diagnostic radiology. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2012;33(1):4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. NCRP. Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women. Bethesda: NCRP Report No 54; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  15. American College of Radiology. ACoR 04-05 bylaws. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shellock F, Crues J. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004;232(3):635–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Reeves M, Brandreth M, Whitby E, Hart A, Paley M, Griffiths P, et al. Neonatal cochlear function: measurement after exposure to acoustic noise during in utero MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;257(3):802–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Strizek B, Jani J, Mucyo E, De Keyzer F, Pauwels I, Ziane S. Safety of MR imaging at 1.5 T in fetuses: a retrospective case-control study of birth weights and the effects of acoustic noise. Radiology. 2015;275(2):530–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hand J, Li Y, Hajnal J. Numerical study of RF exposure and the resulting temperature rise in the foetus during a magnetic resonance procedure. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(4):913–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Abramowicz J, Barnett S, Duck F, Edmonds P, Hynynen K, Ziskin M. Fetal thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(4):541–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Abramowicz J, Kossoff G, Marsal K, Ter Haar G. Safety statement, 2000 (reconfirmed 2003). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(1):100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dean P. Fetal uptake of an intravascular radiologic contrast medium. Rofo. 1977;127(09):267–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ultravist package insert. Montville, NJ: Berlex; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bourjeily G, Chalhoub M, Phornphutkul C, Alleyne T, Woodfield C, Chen K. Neonatal thyroid function: effect of a single exposure to iodinated contrast medium in utero. Radiology. 2010;256(3):744–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. ACR Manual on Contrast Media v10.3 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 24 October 2017]. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/Contrast-Manual.

  26. Omniscan package insert. Princceton, NJ: GE Healthcare; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ray J, Vermeulen M, Bharatha A, Montanera W, Park A. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316(9):952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sikka A, Bisla J, Rajan P, Chalifoux L, Goodhartz L, Miller F. How to manage allergic reactions to contrast agent in pregnant patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(2):247–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tamir I, Bongard F, Klein S. Acute appendicitis in the pregnant patient. Am J Surg. 1990;160(6):571–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tracey M, Fletcher HS. Appendicitis in pregnancy. Am Surg. 2000;66:555–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weiss C, Macura K. Diagnosis of ruptured appendicitis during pregnancy: role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Women Imaging. 2003;5(4):192–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lim H, Bae S, Seo G. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(3):539–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lazarus E, Mayo-Smith W, Mainiero M, Spencer P. CT in the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in pregnant women. Radiology. 2007;244(3):784–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wagner L, Huda W. When a pregnant woman with suspected appendicitis is referred for a CT scan, what should a radiologist do to minimize potential radiation risks? Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34(7):589–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Birchard K, Brown M, Hyslop W, Firat Z, Semelka R. MRI of acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(2):452–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pedrosa I, Zeikus E, Levine D, Rofsky N. MR imaging of acute right lower quadrant pain in pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Radiographics. 2007;27(3):721–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh A, Siewert B, Ngo L, Rofsky N. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology. 2006;238(3):891–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lu E, Curet M, El-Sayed Y, Kirkwood K. Medical versus surgical management of biliary tract disease in pregnancy. Am J Surg. 2004;188(6):755–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kahaleh M, Hartwell G, Arseneau K, Pajewski T, Mullick T, Isin G, et al. Safety and efficacy of ERCP in pregnancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60(2):287–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gupta R, Tandan M, Lakhtakia S, Santosh D, Rao GV, Reddy DN. Safety of therapeutic ERCP in pregnancy: an Indian experience. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2005;24:161–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shanmugam V, Beattie G, Yule S, Reid W, Loudon M. Is magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography the new gold standard in biliary imaging? Br J Radiol. 2005;78(934):888–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Moon J, Cho Y, Cha S, Cheon Y, Ahn H, Kim Y. The detection of bile duct stones in suspected biliary pancreatitis: comparison of MRCP, ERCP, and intraductal US. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(5):1051–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Winer-Muram H, Boone J, Brown H, Jennings S, Mabie W, Lombardo G. Pulmonary embolism in pregnant patients: fetal radiation dose with helical CT. Radiology. 2002;224(2):487–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nijkeuter M, Ginsberg J, Huisman M. Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(3):496–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Scarsbrook A, Evans A, Owen A, Gleeson F. Diagnosis of suspected venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy. Clin Radiol. 2006;61(1):1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mudge C, Healey T, Atalay M, Pezzullo J. Feasibility of detecting pulmonary embolism using noncontrast MRI. ISRN Radiol. 2013;2013:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Baerga-Varela Y, Zietlow S, Bannon M, Harmsen W, Ilstrup DM. Trauma in pregnancy. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care. 1999;46(1):208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Grossman NB. Blunt trauma in pregnancy. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70:1303–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Esposito T, Gens DR, Smith LG, Scorpio R, Buchman T. Trauma during pregnancy. Arch Surg. 1991;126(9):1073.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Visser B, Glasgow R, Mulvihill K, Mulvihill S. Safety and timing of nonobstetric abdominal surgery in pregnancy. Dig Surg. 2001;18(5):409–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Puri A, Khadem P, Ahmed S, Yadav P, Al-Dulaimy K. Imaging of trauma in a pregnant patient. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2012;33(1):37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mattox K, Goetzl L. Trauma in pregnancy. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(Supplement):S385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sadro C, Bittle M, O’Connell K. Imaging the pregnant trauma patient. Ultrasound Clin. 2011;6(1):97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rose JS. Ultrasound in abdominal trauma. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2004;22(3):581–99. vii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Branney SW, Wolfe RE, Moore EE, Albert NP, Heinig M, Mestek M, et al. Quantitative sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting free intraperitoneal fluid. J Trauma. 1995;39(2):375–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Shackford SR, Rogers FB, Osler TM, Trabulsy ME, Clauss DW, Vane DW. Focused abdominal sonogram for trauma: the learning curve of nonradiologist clinicians in detecting hemoperitoneum. J Trauma. 1999;46(4):553–62. discussion 562-564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Richards JR, Ormsby EL, Romo MV, Gillen MA, McGahan JP. Blunt abdominal injury in the pregnant patient: detection with US. Radiology. 2004;233(2):463–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Goodwin H, Holmes JF, Wisner DH. Abdominal ultrasound examination in pregnant blunt trauma patients. J Trauma. 2001;50(4):689–693; discussion 694. discussion 694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Brown MA, Sirlin CB, Farahmand N, Hoyt DB, Casola G. Screening sonography in pregnant patients with blunt abdominal trauma. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(2):175–81. quiz 183-184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Richards JR, McGahan JP, Jones CD, Zhan S, Gerscovich EO. Ultrasound detection of blunt splenic injury. Injury. 2001;32(2):95–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Richards JR, McGahan JP, Pali MJ, Bohnen PA. Sonographic detection of blunt hepatic trauma: hemoperitoneum and parenchymal patterns of injury. J Trauma. 1999;47(6):1092–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Brown MA, Casola G, Sirlin CB, Hoyt DB. Importance of evaluating organ parenchyma during screening abdominal ultrasonography after blunt trauma. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(6):577–83. quiz 585

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Mee SL, McAnnich JW, Federle MP. Computerized tomography in bladder rupture: diagnostic limitations. J Urol. 1987;137:207–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. McAleer S, Loughlin K. Nephrolithiasis and pregnancy. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14(2):123–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Parulkar B, Hopkins T, Wollin M, Howard P, Lal A. Renal colic during pregnancy: a case for conservative treatment. J Urol. 1998;159(2):365–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Stothers L, Lee L. Renal colic in pregnancy. J Urol. 1992;148(5):1383–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hertzberg B, Carroll B, Bowie J, Paine S, Kliewer M, Paulson E, et al. Doppler US assessment of maternal kidneys: analysis of intrarenal resistivity indexes in normal pregnancy and physiologic pelvicaliectasis. Radiology. 1993;186(3):689–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Deyoe L, Cronan J, Breslaw B, Ridlen M. New techniques of ultrasound and color Doppler in the prospective evaluation of acute renal obstruction. Do they replace the intravenous urogram? Abdom Imaging. 1995;20(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Wachsberg R. Unilateral absence of ureteral jets in the third trimester of pregnancy: pitfall in color Doppler US diagnosis of urinary obstruction. Radiology. 1998;209(1):279–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Laing F, Benson C, DiSalvo D, Brown D, Frates M, Loughlin K. Distal ureteral calculi: detection with vaginal US. Radiology. 1994;192(2):545–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hurwitz L, Yoshizumi T, Reiman R, Goodman P, Paulson E, Frush D. Radiation dose to the fetus from body MDCT during early gestation. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(3):871–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Roy C, Saussine C, Le Bras Y, Delepaul B, Jahn C, Steichen G. Assessment of painful ureterohydronephrosis during pregnancy by MR urography. Eur Radiol. 1996;6(3):334–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, LAC-USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Sudheer Balakrishnan

Authors
  1. Sudheer Balakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sudheer Balakrishnan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ceana H. Nezhat

  2. Department of Surgery, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Youngstown, OH, USA

    Michael S. Kavic

  3. School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Raymond J. Lanzafame

  4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Michael K. Lindsay

  5. Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, LAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Travis M. Polk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Balakrishnan, S. (2019). Non-obstetric Imaging in Pregnant Women. In: Nezhat, C., Kavic, M., Lanzafame, R., Lindsay, M., Polk, T. (eds) Non-Obstetric Surgery During Pregnancy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90752-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90752-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90751-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90752-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation