First trimester anatomy ultrasound for patients with obesity: A randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Background Second-trimester ultrasound is the standard technique for fetal anatomy evaluation in the United States despite international guidelines and literature that suggest that first-trimester timing may be superior in patients with obesity. First-trimester imaging performs well in cohorts of participants with obesity. Objective Our aim was to compare the completion rate of a first-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound scan with that of a second-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound scan among pregnant people with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2. Study design This randomized controlled trial enrolled participants with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2 with a singleton gestation and who presented before 14+0/7 weeks of gestation. Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound assessment of anatomy at either 12+0/7 to 13+6/7 weeks or at 18+0/7 to 22+6/7 weeks. The primary outcome was completion rate (percentage of scans that optimally imaged all the required fetal structures). Secondary outcomes included the necessity of a transvaginal approach, completion rates for each individual view, number of anomalies identified and missed in each group, scan duration, and patient perspectives. A 1-year pilot sample was analyzed using Bayesian methods for the primary outcome with a neutral prior and frequentist analyses for the remaining outcomes. Results A total of 128 participants were enrolled, and 1 withdrew consent; 62 subjects underwent a first-trimester ultrasound scan and 62 underwent a second-trimester ultrasound scan. A total of 2 participants did not attend the research visits, and 1 sought termination of pregnancy. In the first-trimester group, 66% (41/62) of ultrasound scans were completed in comparison with 53% (33/62) in the second-trimester ultrasound group (Bayesian relative risk, 1.20; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.73). When compared with a second-trimester scan plus a follow-up ultrasound, a first-trimester ultrasound plus a second-trimester ultrasound was equally successful in completing the anatomy views (76%). First-trimester anatomy ultrasound scans required a transvaginal approach in 63% (39/62) of cases and had a longer duration than a second-trimester ultrasound scan. No anomalies were missed in either group. First-trimester ultrasound participants who responded to a survey described that they were very satisfied with the technique. Conclusion In pregnant subjects with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2, a single first-trimester anatomy ultrasound scan was more likely to obtain all the recommended anatomic views than a single second-trimester ultrasound scan. An evaluation of anatomy at 12+0/7 to 13+6/7 weeks' gestation plus an evaluation at 18+0/7 to 22+6/7 led to complete anatomic evaluation 4 weeks earlier than 2 second trimester scans. Assessment of ultrasound duration in a clinical setting is needed to ensure feasibility outside of a research setting.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In obese populations, a transvaginal approach was required in 63% of cases to complete the anatomy views during the first-trimester scan.
“Especially regarding obese populations, a recent study showed that a transvaginal approach was required in 63% of cases to complete the anatomy views during the first-trimester scan [19].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Cites
The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O'Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 · Cited by 24,013 · see citing works
<scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- Authors
- Buskmiller, C., Fishel Bartal, M., Bonilla, M., Denham, C., Nguyen, R., Sibai, B., Pedroza, C., & Hernandez-Andrade, E.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Buskmiller, Cara
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 101143
- ISSN
- 2589-9333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4386400089
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
- Keywords
- first-trimester ultrasound, second-trimester ultrasound, fetal anatomy, maternal obesity, prenatal screening, transvaginal ultrasound, fetal anomaly detection, patient satisfaction, gestational age
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Female, Fetus, Humans, Obesity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy Trimester, Second
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review