Repeatability of volume calculations of the fetal urinary bladder

© 2016 by the Author(s). Licensee POL Scientific, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Download PDF

Cite

XML

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the intra- and inter-observer variation of the manual 3D Virtual Organ Computer-aided Analysis (VOCAL) in calculating fetal bladder volume and compare results from VOCAL with Sonography-based Automated Volume Count (SonoAVC) and a mathematical calculation based on three radiuses.

METHODS: Forty-five women attending the second trimester routine scan at St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway were included in a prospective observational study. 3D acquisition of the fetal bladder was performed with Voluson E8 and the results were compared with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), repeatability coefficient and limits of agreement.

RESULTS: Good intra-observer agreement for both examiners was observed. ICCs were 0.98 and 0.99 and the repeatability coefficients were ± 27 and ± 25 mm³. However, we found a significant difference between the two observers. The mean difference was 20 mm³ (95% CI 9-32). Inter-observer ICC was 0.96. The mean volume based on radiuses was 148 (SD 14) mm³ vs. 145 (SD 14) mm³ based on VOCAL and 161 (SD 16) mm³ based on SonoAVC. The mean volume based on SonoAVC was significant larger than volumes based on radiuses. The ICCs between methods were good and varied from 0.82 to 0.93. The mean time used in calculating volumes was 94 seconds using VOCAL, 86 seconds using SonoAVC and 28 seconds calculating from radiuses.

CONCLUSIONS: VOCAL and SonoAVC did not show advantages compared to calculations based on radiuses. Therefore, we recommend calculating volumes of spherical fetal organs from three radiuses because this method was easiest to perform.

Keywords

3D ultrasound

fetal bladder volume

repeatability analyses

volume calculations

References

1. Bondagji NS. Antenatal diagnosis, prevalence and outcome of congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract in Saudi Arabia. Urol Ann. 2014;6(1):36-40. doi: 10.4103/0974-7796.127021. PubMed PMID: 24669120
2. Eckoldt F, Heling KS, Woderich R, Wolke S. Posterior urethral valves: prenatal diagnostic signs and outcome. Urologia internationalis. 2004;73(4):296-301. Epub 2004/12/18. doi: 10.1159/000081586. PubMed PMID: 15604570.
3. McHugo J, Whittle M. Enlarged fetal bladders: aetiology, management and outcome. Prenatal diagnosis. 2001;21(11):958-63. Epub 2001/12/18. PubMed PMID: 11746149.
4. Fievet L, Faure A, Coze S, Harper L, Panait N, Braunstein D, et al. Fetal megacystis: etiologies, management, and outcome according to the trimester. Urology. 2014;84(1):185-90. Epub 2014/04/22. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.018. PubMed PMID: 24745800.
5. Kraiem J, Ben Brahim Y, Jouini H, Ben Brahim I, Chatti S, Falfoul A. [Prune belly syndrome: early prenatal diagnosis and management]. La Tunisie medicale. 2006;84(7):458-61. Epub 2006/10/17. PubMed PMID: 17039740.
6. Liao AW, Sebire NJ, Geerts L, Cicero S, Nicolaides KH. Megacystis at 10-14 weeks of gestation: chromosomal defects and outcome according to bladder length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(4):338-41. Epub 2003/04/22. doi: 10.1002/uog.81. PubMed PMID: 12704740.
7. Wee LY, Fisk NM. The twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Seminars in neonatology : SN. 2002;7(3):187-202. Epub 2002/09/18. PubMed PMID: 12234743.
8. Blaas HG, Eik-Nes SH, Berg S, Torp H. In-vivo three-dimensional ultrasound reconstructions of embryos and early fetuses. Lancet. 1998;352(9135):1182-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03227-9. PubMed PMID: 9777835.
9. Duin LK, Willekes C, Vossen M, Beckers M, Offermans J, Nijhuis JG. Reproducibility of fetal renal pelvis volume measurement using three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):657-61. doi: 10.1002/uog.5208. PubMed PMID: 18470970.
10. Kusanovic JP, Nien JK, Goncalves LF, Espinoza J, Lee W, Balasubramaniam M, et al. The use of inversion mode and 3D manual segmentation in volume measurement of fetal fluid-filled structures: comparison with Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis (VOCAL). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(2):177-86. doi: 10.1002/uog.5242. PubMed PMID: 18254130
11. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes J, Joergner I, Bonaki SD, Chamberlain S, et al. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):691-6. doi: 10.1002/uog.5359. PubMed PMID: 18484679.
12. Ioannou C, Sarris I, Salomon LJ, Papageorghiou AT. A review of fetal volumetry: the need for standardization and definitions in measurement methodology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(6):613-9. doi: 10.1002/uog.9074. PubMed PMID: 21674657.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22(1):85-93. Epub 2003/07/15. doi: 10.1002/uog.122. PubMed PMID: 12858311.
14. Odeh M, Hirsh Y, Degani S, Grinin V, Ofir E, Bornstein J. Three-dimensional sonographic volumetry of the gestational sac and the amniotic sac in the first trimester. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):373-8. PubMed PMID: 18314515.
15. Reus AD, El-Harbachi H, Rousian M, Willemsen SP, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Steegers EA, et al. Early first-trimester trophoblast volume in pregnancies that result in live birth or miscarriage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(5):577-84. doi: 10.1002/uog.13197. PubMed PMID: 23996572.
16. Cheong KB, Leung KY, Li TK, Chan HY, Lee YP, Tang MH. Comparison of inter- and intraobserver agreement and reliability between three different types of placental volume measurement technique (XI VOCAL, VOCAL and multiplanar) and validity in the in-vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(2):210-7. doi: 10.1002/uog.7609. PubMed PMID: 20201116.
17. Berg S, Torp H, Blaas HG. Accuracy of in-vitro volume estimation of small structures using three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2000;26(3):425-32. PubMed PMID: 10773373.
18. Blaas HG, Taipale P, Torp H, Eik-Nes SH. Three-dimensional ultrasound volume calculations of human embryos and young fetuses: a study on the volumetry of compound structures and its reproducibility. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(6):640-6. doi: 10.1002/uog.2794. PubMed PMID: 16710882.
19. Kist WJ, Slaghekke F, Papanna R, Johnson A, Vandenbussche FP, Wolterbeek R, et al. Sonography-based Automated Volume Count to estimate fetal urine production in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: comparison with Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;205(6):574.e1-5. Epub 2011/09/13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.090. PubMed PMID: 21906713.
20. Sueters M, Oepkes D. Diagnosis of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, selective fetal growth restriction, twin anaemia-polycythaemia sequence, and twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(2):215-26. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.12.002. PubMed PMID: 24433823.
21. Diehl W, Diemert A, Hecher K. Twin-twin transfusion syndrome: treatment and outcome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(2):227-38. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.12.001. PubMed PMID: 24512749.
22. Morris RK, Middleton LJ, Malin GL, Quinlan-Jones E, Daniels J, Khan KS, et al. Outcome in fetal lower urinary tract obstruction: a prospective registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):424-31. doi: 10.1002/uog.14808. PubMed PMID: 25689128.
23. Sepulveda W. Megacystis in the first trimester. Prenatal diagnosis. 2004;24(2):144-9. Epub 2004/02/20. doi: 10.1002/pd.790. PubMed PMID: 14974124.
24. Godinho AB, Nunes C, Janeiro M, Carvalho R, Melo MA, da Graca LM. Ureterocele: antenatal diagnosis and management. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013;34(3):188-91. doi: 10.1159/000353388. PubMed PMID: 23969704.
25. Raine-Fenning NJ, Clewes JS, Kendall NR, Bunkheila AK, Campbell BK, Johnson IR. The interobserver reliability and validity of volume calculation from three-dimensional ultrasound datasets in the in vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(3):283-91. doi: 10.1002/uog.61. PubMed PMID: 12666225.

Previous article in this issue

Next article in this issue

Bladder, Electronic ISSN: 2327-2120 Print ISSN: TBA, Published by POL Scientific

Publisher's Core Philosophy

We are committed to support the scientific community by publishing impactful research and enhancing communication among scientists. At POL Scientific, we are continuously looking for ways to accelerate scientific progress and to strive for transparency and open communication, making knowledge freely accessible without barrier.

171 Skyview St. San Francisco, CA 94131 U.S.A.

info@polscientific.com