In today's world, ultrasound has become a routine diagnostic tool and has even been widely used in pregnancy tests. But many people know only the useful side, not the dangerous side.
Never "absolutely safe"
Due to specific national conditions, public opinion's concern about fetal ultrasound only stays on whether it will be used for gender identification. Professor Niu Fengqi of the Institute of Acoustics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences said that this kind of photography under the banner of "humanized service" should pay more attention to - ( ゚ω ゚) = will not bring any potential harm to the fetus!
Ultrasound is an energy that is now used to kill tumor cells and human gravel, and more than a certain dose (intensity and time) will definitely cause harm to the human body. Although a large number of foreign studies have confirmed that the application of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology will not cause fetal malformations, there is no exact data to prove the absolute safety of ultrasound examination so far. Especially in the past decade, due to the large number of applications of color ultrasound, spectrum Doppler and the significant increase in B-ultrasound function, almost all of them are premised on improving the intensity of ultrasound, and the statistics have not yet reflected the situation after the improvement. Because of this, the international ultrasound medical community has an ALARA principle, that is, "to obtain the required information with the lowest possible sound output".
The most worrying thing about fetal scans is the temperature rise. It is now known that heat has a teratogenic effect. German scientists found that the bones of the three-month-old fetus are more sensitive to temperature rise, and ultrasonography at this time will cause damage to the fetal bones. Fetal germ cells and delicate tissues are particularly sensitive to the increase in ultrasound dose, even if the necessary examination should be done with caution, how can the hospital risk children for "taking pictures" that have nothing to do with medicine!
Many ultrasound doctors are "in the dark"
The U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has enforced special restrictions on sound output, and manufacturers provide safety assurance. The average sound intensity of the spatial peak-time in vivo (converted by the measured value in water) is:
Ophthalmology 17mw/cm;
Fetal and other for 94 mw/cm;
Peripheral vessels are 720 mw/cm.
However, since 1993, the sound intensity has been relaxed to 720mw/cm, provided that the thermal index or (and) mechanical index display function is set on the instrument, and they are used for safety control. However, with this change, the sound intensity of the fetus is increased to 8 times the original. What is even more frightening is that the continental standard transformed from the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard stipulates that the measurement value of the space peak-time average sound intensity in the water is 100mwcm, and the measurement value of 720mw/cm in the water corresponding to the body sound intensity is 1500mw/cm, which is 15 times that of the continental standard!
One of the purposes of the U.S. regulatory changes is to shift responsibility for clinical acoustic safety from manufacturers to clinicians, who select sound output levels that are both safe and not exceeding the standard according to the differences in clinical subjects.
"Taking pictures" of the fetus should not be encouraged
In the United States, there are also many pregnant women who often go to the hospital to take pictures at their own expense to see the faces of children in their abdomen, and the American Medical Ultrasound Society has been worried about its growing number, recommending that only five ultrasounds be done during pregnancy without complications:
●About 7 weeks, early pregnancy test
●11--13 weeks + 6 days NT examination
●20--24 weeks Large row of deformities examination
●28--32 weeks of large row of deformities review
●Prenatal examination
The U.S. FDA also explicitly advises pregnant women not to go for that kind of "gift-like ultrasound," saying that such tests are not approved. The mainland medical community should take this as a lesson and explicitly oppose such "taking pictures" activities for non-medical reasons. Any such "service" for commercial and revenue-generating purposes is irresponsible and unethical and deserves to be condemned by the public.
I'm Superman, follow me and take you to learn more about the interesting world of medicine.