Download PDF
Hebamme 2007; 20(3): 190-197
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-991551
Schwangerschaft
Ultraschalldiagnostik
© Hippokrates Verlag in MVS Medizinverlage Stuttgart GmbH & Co. KG

Plädoyer für eine natürliche Geburtshilfe ohne Routine-Ultraschall

Kirsten Proppe
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 October 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zum Thema

Seit einiger Zeit häufen sich die Werbekampagnen in Presse und Fernsehen für die neue Generation von strahlungsintensiveren Ultraschallgeräten. Angepriesen werden die neuen 3- und 4-D-Geräte, deren bessere Bildqualität Ärzte, Hebammen und Eltern faszinieren. Ein solches modernes Ultraschall-gerät kostet heute zwischen 120 000 und 180 000 Euro und man kann sich unschwer ausrechnen, dass sehr viele Anwendungen nötig sind, um die hohen Kosten wieder zu amortisieren.

Und so beobachten wir seit Jahren einen ständig wachsenden Einsatz von Ultraschall in der Schwangerschaft, ohne dass die Unschädlichkeit der Ultra-schallwellen je bewiesen werden konnte. Dabei sollte man einen solchen Nachweis wohl erwarten, bevor Ultraschallwellen bei ungeborenen Kindern routinemäßig angewendet werden.

Demzufolge nehmen unsere ungeborenen Kinder an einer der größten Langzeitstudien teil, deren Folgen noch gar nicht einzuschätzen sind, da die oft erst später auftretenden Schädigungen der Kinder gar nicht mit dem möglichen Auslöser Ultraschall in Verbindung gebracht werden.

Literatur

  • 1 Jepson D. P.. et al. . Was sonar responsible for a spate of whale deaths after an Atlantic military exercise?.  Nature. 2003;  9 575-576
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Dalton R.. Scientists split over regulations on sonar use, Court ruling sounds note of caution for soar system.  Nature. 2003;  9 549
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Grätz JF, Sanfte Medizin.. Tisani Verlag 2007
  • 4 Donald I.. Sonar - Its present status in medicine, in: A. Jurjak (Ed), Progress in Medical Ultrasound. Amsterdam: Expecta Medica 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Taylor KJW. A Prudent Approach to Ultrasound Imaging of the Fetus and Newborn.  Birth. 1990;  17 223
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Schriftenreihe Reaktorsicherheit und Strahlenschutz: Machbarkeit von Studien zur schädigenden Wirkung diagnostischem Ultraschall in der Schwangerschaft auf die Gesundheit der Nachkommen. BMU 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Adey WR, Bawin SM. Amplitude-modulated, very high frequency (VHF) electric fields.  Neurosci Res Program Bull. 1977;  15 36-8
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Karl Hecht. Mobilfunk / Elektrosmog / Gesundheit am 07.07.2006 Dokumentation anlässlich der Anhörung im Bayerischen Landtag zur Thematik: *Czerski et al 1972, 1964; *Minecki (1967, 1965, 1964, 1963, 1961); www.hese-project.org
  • 9 Liebeskind D.. et al. . Diagnostic ultrasound: Effects on the DNA and growth patterns of animal cells.  Radiology. 1979;  131 177-184
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Liebeskind al D. et. Sister chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound.  Science. 1979;  205 1273-1275
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liebeskind al. D. et. Morphological changes in the surface characteristics of cultured cells after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound.  Radiology. 1981;  138 419-423
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Liebeskind D.. et al. . Br J Cancer. 45 176-186
  • 13 Bolsen B. Question of risk still hovers over routine prenatal use of ultrasound.  JAMA. 1982;  247 2195-2197
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eugenius S.. et al. . Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice.  Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 20063;  103
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Ellisman al M. H. et. Diagnostic levels of ultrasound may disrupt myelination.  Exp Neurol. 1987;  98 78-92
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Edwards R. Shadow of doubt.  New Scientist. 1999;  12
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Stanton MT., Brennan PC. et al. . Diagnostic ultrasound induces change within numbers of cryptal mitotic and apoptotic cells in small intestine.  Life Sci. 2001;  16 1471-5
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Bases R.. Diagnostic ultrasound: Time for clinical reevaluation of nonthermal effects.  American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1998;  33 308-309
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zachary F. J., O'Brien Jr. W. D.. Lung lesions induced by continuous- and pulsed wave (diagnostic) ultrasound in mice, rabbits and pigs.  Vet Pathol. 1995;  32 43-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Devi U. P.. et al. . Effect of fetal exposure to ultrasound on the behavior of the adult mouse.  Radiat Res. 1995;  141 314-317
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hande MP, Devi PU. Teratogenic effects of repeated exposures to x-rays and/or ultrasound in mice.  Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995;  17 179-88
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Norton S.. et al. . Acute response of fetal rat telencephalon to ultrasound exposure in utero.  Exp Neurol. 1990;  107 154-163
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Riesz P., Kondo T.. Free radical formation induced by ultrasound and its biological implications.  Free Radic Biol Med. 1992;  13 247-270
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vorhees V. C.. et al. . Behavioral teratologic effects of prenatal exposure to continuous-wave ultrasound in unanesthetized rats.  Teratology. 1994;  10 238-249
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Tarantal F. A.. et al . Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (macaca fascicularis): III. Developmental and hematologic studies.  Teratology. 1993;  47 159-170
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Beech B., Robinson J.. Ultrasound? Unsound AIMS (Association for improvements in the maternity services). Reprint Oct 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Lorenz RP. et al. . Randomized prospective trial comparing ultrasonography and pelvic examination for preterm labor surveillance.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;  162 1603-7
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Saari-Kemppainen A.. et al. . Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy.  The Lancet. 1990;  336 387-91
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Davies A. J.. et al. . Randomised controlled trial of doppler ultrasound screening of placental perfusion during pregnancy.  The Lancet. 1992;  340 1299-1303
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Campbell JD. et al. . Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech.  Can Med Assoc J. 1993;  149 1435-40
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Salvesen A. K.. et al. . Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurological development.  BMJ. 1993;  17 159-64
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Kieler H. et al. . Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children's subsequent handedness.  Early Hum Dev.. 1998;  50 233-45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kieler H.. et al. . Sinistrality - a side-effect of prenatal sonography: a comparative study of young men.  Epidemiology. 2001;  12 618-23
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kieler H. et al. . First trimester ultrasound scans and left-handedness.  Epidemiology.. 2002;  3
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Newnham P. J.. et al. . Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial.  The Lancet. 1993;  342 887-91
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Moore Jr. R. M.. et al. . The relationship of birth weight and intrauterine diagnostic ultrasound exposure.  Obstet Gynecol. 1988;  71 513-517
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Newnham JP. et al. . Doppler flow velocity waveform analysis in high risk pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;  98 956-63
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Thacker SB. Quality of controlled clinical trials. The case of imaging ultrasound in obstetric: a review.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;  92 437-44
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Eugenie Samuel. Fetuses can hear ultrasound examinations.  New Scientist. 2001;  10
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Mostafa Fatemi, Paul L., Ogburn Jr., James F.. Greenleaf: Fetal Stimulation by Pulsed Diagnostic Ultrasound.  Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2001;  30 883-889
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Testart J.. et al. . Premature ovulation after ovarian ultrasonography.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol.. 1682;  89 694-700
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Stark CR. et al. . Short- and long-term risk after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero.  Obstet Gynecol. 1984;  63 194-200
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Olsen O, Aaroe J. Clausen. Routine ultrasound dating has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method.  Br J Obstetric Gynaecol. 1997;  104 1221-2
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Cnattingius S.. et al. . The clinical value of measurements of the symphysis-fundus. distance and ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation.  J Perinat Med.. 1985;  13
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Wagner M.. Ultrasound: More harm than good?.  Midwifery Today Summer. 1999;  50
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Newnham P. J.. et al. . Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial.  The Lancet. 1993;  342 887-91
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 48 F. Veldmann. Haptonomie. Science de l'affectivité. PUF Paris 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Beech B. Ultrasound: Weighing the propaganda against the Facts.  Midwifery Today. 1999;  51
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Skari H.. et al. . Consequences of prenatal ultrasound diagnosis: a preliminary report on neonates with congenital malformations.  Acta. Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;  77 635-42
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Jahn al A. et. Routine screening for intrauterine growth retardation in Gernany: low sensitivity and questionable benefit for diagnosed cases.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.. 1998;  77 643-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Chan F.. Limitations of Ultrasound. Paper presented at Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 1st Annual Congress. Fremantle, Australia 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Thompson al. E. et. Are rural general practitioner-obstetricians performing too many prenatal ultrasound examinations?.  Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1998;  158 307-313
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Raupach K., Zimmermann R.. False diagnosis in prenatal sonography - analysis of causes and formulation of conclusions for the quality management of prenatal sonographic diagnostics.  Ultraschall Med.. 2004;  25 438-43
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bucher HC., Schmidt JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy?.  BMJ. 1993;  3 13-7
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Bricker L, Neilson JP. Routine doppler ultrasound in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Bricker L, Neilson JP. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Haire D.. Ultrasound in obstetrics: a question of safety. Alliance for the improvement of maternity services (AIMS), 5 Ann's Court, Grove Road, Surbiton, Surrey, KT6 4BE, Great Britain 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Berkowitz R.. Should every pregnant woman undergo ultrasonography?.  New England Journal of Medicine. 1993;  329 874-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Ewigman G. B.. et al. . Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome.  New England Journal of Medicine. 1993;  329 821-27
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Neilson JP. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Lynne Taggart Mc. Was Ärzte ihnen nicht erzählen.  Sensei Verlag. 2003;  3
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Shy KK.. et al. . Effects of electronic fetal-heart-rate monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation, on the neurologic development of premature infants.  New England Journal of Medicine. 1990;  322 588-93
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Nelson B K.. et al. . Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy.  New England Journal of Medicine. 1996;  334 613-8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 65 The World Foundation for Natural Science: Kochen mit Mikrowellen? Der Kuss des Todes! Sonderdruck Jahrgang 2 Nr. 4. WFNS, Postfach 7995, CH-6000 Luzern. 
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Reece L. The estimation of fetal maturity by a new method of x-ray cephalometry: its bearing on clinical midwifery.  Proc Royal Soc Med. 1935;  18
    Google Scholar
  • 67 FDA (Food and Drug Administration); AMA(American Medical Association); ACOG(American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists); WHO (Weltgesundheitsorganisation); USNIV (US National Institutes of Health); ACR (American College of Radiology); USPSTF (U.S goverment's Preventive Service Task). 
    Google Scholar

Anschrift der Autorin:

Kirsten Proppe

Dorfstr. 24 E

CH-3858 Hofstetten

Email: kaproppe@freesurf.ch