Sister chromatid exchange and ultrasound.

Goss, S. A.

doi:10.7863/jum.1984.3.10.463

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like with the previous chromosomes aberration situation, numerous laboratories throughout the world attempted to replicate the findings. In 1984, the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine's Bioeffects Committee carefully and thoroughly reviewed a total of 14 ultrasound-SCE studies and concluded that these studies do not suggest a hazard from exposure to diagnostic ultrasound (Goss, 1984).…”

Section: A Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound–biophysics mechanisms

O’Brien

2007

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

596

416

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasonic biophysics is the study of mechanisms responsible for how ultrasound and biological materials interact. Ultrasound-induced bioeffect or risk studies focus on issues related to the effects of ultrasound on biological materials. On the other hand, when biological materials affect the ultrasonic wave, this can be viewed as the basis for diagnostic ultrasound. Thus, an understanding of the interaction of ultrasound with tissue provides the scientific basis for image production and risk assessment. Relative to the bioeffect or risk studies, that is, the biophysical mechanisms by which ultrasound affects biological materials, ultrasound-induced bioeffects are generally separated into thermal and nonthermal mechanisms. Ultrasonic dosimetry is concerned with the quantitative determination of ultrasonic energy interaction with biological materials. Whenever ultrasonic energy is propagated into an attenuating material such as tissue, the amplitude of the wave decreases with distance. This attenuation is due to either absorption or scattering. Absorption is a mechanism that represents that portion of ultrasonic wave that is converted into heat, and scattering can be thought of as that portion of the wave, which changes direction. Because the medium can absorb energy to produce heat, a temperature rise may occur as long as the rate of heat production is greater than the rate of heat removal. Current interest with thermally mediated ultrasound-induced bioeffects has focused on the thermal isoeffect concept. The non-thermal mechanism that has received the most attention is acoustically generated cavitation wherein ultrasonic energy by cavitation bubbles is concentrated. Acoustic cavitation, in a broad sense, refers to ultrasonically induced bubble activity occurring in a biological material that contains pre-existing gaseous inclusions. Cavitation-related mechanisms include radiation force, microstreaming, shock waves, free radicals, microjets and strain. It is more challenging to deduce the causes of mechanical effects in tissues that do not contain gas bodies. These ultrasonic biophysics mechanisms will be discussed in the context of diagnostic ultrasound exposure risk concerns.

show abstract

Section: A Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound–biophysics mechanisms

O’Brien

2007

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

596

416

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The equipment had a variable focus range (near, mid, far 1, far 2). Measurements of the output energy levels at all settings were supplied by the manufactur-Accepted for publication 6 * Due to lack of circular symmetry of the beam from linear arrays, the area was calculated from 2 orthogonal widths assuming an elliptical cross-section. I SPTA , spatial-peak temporal-average intensity; I SPPA , spatial-peak pulse-average intensity; 1 m , maximum intensity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The detection of SCE in mammalian cells treated in vitro or .in vivo with genotoxic compounds and in lymphocytes of humans exposed to noxious agents has been widely used as a parameter of genetic damage. Most of the published studies showed that diagnostic US does not induce SCE above the control levels either in vivo or in vitro (6). Since many sources of variability have to be considered in dealing with SCE analysis, it is difficult to point out single methodologic errors giving rise either to false-positive or false-negative results.…”

Section: Source Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sister Chromatid Exchanges in Cultured Amniocytes Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound in Vitro

Porfirio¹,

Dallapiccola²,

Cittanti³

et al. 1994

Acta Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An in vitro system has been set up to study the possible genetic effects of diagnostic ultrasound (US) on the developing fetus. Amniotic cells were cultured by the in situ technique. Well established clones were exposed to US for various lengths of time using a linear array transducer within a sound transparent apparatus. Cells were then grown in the presence of 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine and processed for scoring the number of sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) as the cytogenetic endpoint. There was no linear relationship between the SCE frequency and the duration of US exposure. Variance analysis showed that only interindividual variability was a significant component of total variation. Neither the main effect of treatment nor the interaction effect were statistically significant. The data suggest that US delivered from a diagnostic unit to actively growing cultured fetal cells in a system closely mimicking the conditions of US exposure during amniocentesis does not induce SCE.

show abstract

“…There have been two other positive observations (Haupt et al, 198 1 ;Ehlinger et al, 1981) of increased SCEs, both with diagnostic levels of ultrasound. But, there have been at least ten other studies, some at diagnostic levels (both pulsed and continuous wave exposure conditions) and some at levels within, or even higher than, therapeutic levels which have reported no increase in SCE s. These fourteen studies have been carefully and thor-oughly reviewed by the AIUM Bioeffects Committee (Goss, 1984). Their conclusion is that these studies do not suggest a hazard in diagnostic ultrasound.…”

Section: Experimental Studies Of Ultrasound Bioeffects: Some General mentioning

confidence: 95%

Ultrasonic Bioeffects: A View of Experimental Studies

O’Brien

1984

Birth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnostic ultrasound of the pulse-echo imaging type is used in at least 25 per cent of pregnancies, and Doppler continuous wave ultrasound, as employed in external electronic fetal monitors, is used in nearly all pregnancies. Diagnostic ultrasound energy levels are from 0.1 to 40 m Wlcm'. These intensity levels depend on the characteristics of the ultrasonic beam and temporal exposure. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine states that. . . "there have. been as of October, I982 no independently confirmed significantbiological effects in mammalian tissues exposed to intensities below I00 m W/cm2."Some of the animal studies reviewed by the AIUM to reach this conclusion are discussed. (BIRTH 11:3, 1984)

show abstract

Sister chromatid exchange and ultrasound.

Cited by 14 publications

References 9 publications

Ultrasound–biophysics mechanisms

Ultrasound–biophysics mechanisms

Sister Chromatid Exchanges in Cultured Amniocytes Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound in Vitro

Ultrasonic Bioeffects: A View of Experimental Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About